4 ms·

Has any other author ever been so consistently dismissed over one errata-worthy, not-particularly-crucial, sentence in a first edition of one book? Why is that

Has any other author ever been so consistently dismissed over one errata-worthy, not-particularly-crucial, sentence in a first edition of one book? Why is that brought up as some kind of "gotcha" every time he comes up? You could dismiss most any author with any significant amount of published material over similar trivia.

dogman144 5y ago
Author gets dismissed because the follow on editions are still a detail-packed journey through ancient anthropology that all cleanly lands as “see, debt is slavery and always has been.” I don’t know how someone can take such a un-nuanced view of credit markets seriously.
- handrous 5y ago
  I read it, and recall there being a bit more to it than that. For one thing—of many—the book treats extensively of debt as a kind of social glue, fundamental to human relationships & societies, which isn't compatible with: "see, debt is slavery and always has been." One consistent problem I've had trying to take in criticism of the book (and I have looked for it!) is that it rarely seems to have been written by people who read the same book I did. It's bizarre.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    I think what frustrates people is two things. First, the lengthy slog through ancient African societies which then suddenly ~lands at very on-the-nose messaging and what feels like the “real point” or basically a total revamp of the book’s themes up to that point. But this occurs when you’re already pretty deep into the book. Second, If I had to guess, and I don’t say this with snark, the Book’s timing is another factor. There’s this sense that a bait and switch occurred where an interesting, nuanced book in the post ‘08 era is started in good faith, and an Occupy WS diatribe suddenly shows up halfway through. Fair - the author was very involved in Occupy, so sure buyer beware. But it was published at a time when many of the book’s readers, and the US at large, had had it with Occupy and it’s themes. But, readers still tried to make an effort to absorb ideas from that side of the house, as ‘11-12 was no economic Cakewalk. Regardless, that honest effort lands squarely back in Occupy territory, but it took 200 pages to get there.
  - nickik 5y ago
    Its more like 'if debt is treated like anything other then non-enumerated social glue' slavery and imperialism are the inevitable result. And it is incredibly unannounced because that is very clearly his view.
- andrepd 5y ago
  You definitely did not read the book if that's what you think it's saying. It wouldn't have 500 pages if it was just "debt = slavery" :p
  - handrous 5y ago
    Lots of the 1-star reviews of it on Amazon, for instance, are by people who seemed to have skimmed it, because they'll level complaints like "the book said X, which is ridiculous because Y!" when the book explicitly identifies and addresses exactly Y within a paragraph or two of introducing X. It's like they're not familiar with that form of writing[0] and, on reading something they think may have problems, just skip ahead to the next argument. Longer-form criticism I've read of it tends to exhibit similar, if less egregious, problems with reading comprehension. Which is frustrating because I suspect the book actually does have issues and oversights that would be nice to read about from a person with the right background who actually closely read & understood the book. [0] I do have my suspicions about what kind of economic/political writing these folks are used to reading, that's (evidently) conditioned them not to expect anything resembling a sincere and thorough attempt to address problems with an assertion or argument to follow close on the heels of same assertion or argument, so may incline them toward skipping ahead or skimming heavily on reading something they immediately think of an objection to....
jdminhbg 5y ago
Graeber was a good writer but a bullshit merchant, and that sentence is his oeuvre's purest distillation: It sounded good and right to him when he wrote it, so nobody bothered to check if it was true or not.
- handrous 5y ago
  Could you point me to some good criticism of him? I've sought it before because he does feel that way to me, reading him, but what I've found has mostly been low-quality.
  - nickik 5y ago
    The book is so wide range and meta narrative with a bunch of really specific examples. Some of those have been addressed but nobody seem to want to address the book as a whole. The basic idea of the book is very old and not original. Social science and philosophy has been arguing about the definition/meaning/origin of debt, money, property right for a long time. He takes a very clear position on it that is clearly based in his ideological believes and then does a running narration of 5000 years of history that all proves his point crossing every social science in the process. From my perspective as somebody that knows economics, its blatantly clear that he has no respect for economist and has not bothered with history of economic thought beyond finding a few quotes to slander. At the same time its totally clear he has never seriously read the works he seems to despise. It seems that it is his serious believe that economist and apparently the whole history of economics is simply justification for imperialism and slavery. Not to mention that he is incredibly rude and response with personal attack when people point out that he made some very basic factual errors. Some of his claims are so incredibly wrong that even somebody who only did the simplest online '101 History of Economic Thought' should not make. Let me give you an example. Consider this text: > Voluntary as well as compulsory unilateral transfers of assets (that is, transfers arising neither from a ‘reciprocal contract’ in general nor from an exchange transaction in particular, although occasionally based on tacitly recognized reciprocity), are among the oldest forms of human relationships as far as we can go back in the history of man’s economizing. Long before the exchange of goods appears in history, or becomes of more than negligible importance…we already find a variety of unilateral transfers: voluntary gifts and gifts made more or less under compulsion, compulsory contributions, damages or fines, compensation for killing someone, unilateral transfers within families, etc.* This was written by an economist in 1892 who according to Graeber only improved on Adam Smith work "by adding various mathematical equations". The text above was from Carl Menger, one of the most well known economist of the century and one of the founders of modern economics. Not just that, even on that wrote precisely on many of the questions Graeber book addresses. So exactly the kind of person Graeber seems to be wanting to debate and dismiss. The perfect pillar of modern (as in Post-Marginal) economics to shoot down. Why then would Graeber claim that he only "adding various mathematical equations"? I seems that the only explanation is that he look up the wrong person on wikipedia, as there is another person with the same name who was a mathematician. Nobody who read even an introduction to modern history of economic thought would make that mistake. He clearly doesn't have a clue who Carl Menger was and clearly has hasn't read his works. He clearly didn't actually study history of economic thought when writing his book. Rather he had preconceived notion and all he needed was a few selective Adam Smith references and dismiss the rest. At the same time he proudly reference the 1925 'The Gift', to prove how much smarter anthropologists are as they understood the importance of the Gift economy. Compared to economist who according to him only believe in the "Mythical Land of Barter". He speaks with equal authority about some almost unknown tribal societies, 5000 year old city states that we only have very basic data on and 2000s century politics and modern central banking (that he has borderline no understanding off). Given his very clear and explicit bias and he evident willingness to do selective reading and misinterpretation I much rather read on these topics from actual experts without such a clear bias and explicit political message.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
First I had heard of it. But I was surprised to see how he waved it away as simply "garbled" and then moved immediately to threats of lawsuits claiming libel. I agree the sentence is a small one. The author's reaction however only succeeds in drawing even more attention to it.
- handrous 5y ago
  IIRC, whatever else you think of Graeber's reaction there, "moved immediately to threats of lawsuits claiming libel" does not accurately describe what he did, as that post is part of a much larger exchange.

dogman144 5y ago

Author gets dismissed because the follow on editions are still a detail-packed journey through ancient anthropology that all cleanly lands as “see, debt is slavery and always has been.” I don’t know how someone can take such a un-nuanced view of credit markets seriously.

handrous 5y ago
I read it, and recall there being a bit more to it than that. For one thing—of many—the book treats extensively of debt as a kind of social glue, fundamental to human relationships & societies, which isn't compatible with: "see, debt is slavery and always has been." One consistent problem I've had trying to take in criticism of the book (and I have looked for it!) is that it rarely seems to have been written by people who read the same book I did. It's bizarre.
- dogman144 5y ago
  I think what frustrates people is two things. First, the lengthy slog through ancient African societies which then suddenly ~lands at very on-the-nose messaging and what feels like the “real point” or basically a total revamp of the book’s themes up to that point. But this occurs when you’re already pretty deep into the book. Second, If I had to guess, and I don’t say this with snark, the Book’s timing is another factor. There’s this sense that a bait and switch occurred where an interesting, nuanced book in the post ‘08 era is started in good faith, and an Occupy WS diatribe suddenly shows up halfway through. Fair - the author was very involved in Occupy, so sure buyer beware. But it was published at a time when many of the book’s readers, and the US at large, had had it with Occupy and it’s themes. But, readers still tried to make an effort to absorb ideas from that side of the house, as ‘11-12 was no economic Cakewalk. Regardless, that honest effort lands squarely back in Occupy territory, but it took 200 pages to get there.
- nickik 5y ago
  Its more like 'if debt is treated like anything other then non-enumerated social glue' slavery and imperialism are the inevitable result. And it is incredibly unannounced because that is very clearly his view.
andrepd 5y ago
You definitely did not read the book if that's what you think it's saying. It wouldn't have 500 pages if it was just "debt = slavery" :p
- handrous 5y ago
  Lots of the 1-star reviews of it on Amazon, for instance, are by people who seemed to have skimmed it, because they'll level complaints like "the book said X, which is ridiculous because Y!" when the book explicitly identifies and addresses exactly Y within a paragraph or two of introducing X. It's like they're not familiar with that form of writing[0] and, on reading something they think may have problems, just skip ahead to the next argument. Longer-form criticism I've read of it tends to exhibit similar, if less egregious, problems with reading comprehension. Which is frustrating because I suspect the book actually does have issues and oversights that would be nice to read about from a person with the right background who actually closely read & understood the book. [0] I do have my suspicions about what kind of economic/political writing these folks are used to reading, that's (evidently) conditioned them not to expect anything resembling a sincere and thorough attempt to address problems with an assertion or argument to follow close on the heels of same assertion or argument, so may incline them toward skipping ahead or skimming heavily on reading something they immediately think of an objection to....

jdminhbg 5y ago

Graeber was a good writer but a bullshit merchant, and that sentence is his oeuvre's purest distillation: It sounded good and right to him when he wrote it, so nobody bothered to check if it was true or not.

handrous 5y ago
Could you point me to some good criticism of him? I've sought it before because he does feel that way to me, reading him, but what I've found has mostly been low-quality.
- nickik 5y ago
  The book is so wide range and meta narrative with a bunch of really specific examples. Some of those have been addressed but nobody seem to want to address the book as a whole. The basic idea of the book is very old and not original. Social science and philosophy has been arguing about the definition/meaning/origin of debt, money, property right for a long time. He takes a very clear position on it that is clearly based in his ideological believes and then does a running narration of 5000 years of history that all proves his point crossing every social science in the process. From my perspective as somebody that knows economics, its blatantly clear that he has no respect for economist and has not bothered with history of economic thought beyond finding a few quotes to slander. At the same time its totally clear he has never seriously read the works he seems to despise. It seems that it is his serious believe that economist and apparently the whole history of economics is simply justification for imperialism and slavery. Not to mention that he is incredibly rude and response with personal attack when people point out that he made some very basic factual errors. Some of his claims are so incredibly wrong that even somebody who only did the simplest online '101 History of Economic Thought' should not make. Let me give you an example. Consider this text: > Voluntary as well as compulsory unilateral transfers of assets (that is, transfers arising neither from a ‘reciprocal contract’ in general nor from an exchange transaction in particular, although occasionally based on tacitly recognized reciprocity), are among the oldest forms of human relationships as far as we can go back in the history of man’s economizing. Long before the exchange of goods appears in history, or becomes of more than negligible importance…we already find a variety of unilateral transfers: voluntary gifts and gifts made more or less under compulsion, compulsory contributions, damages or fines, compensation for killing someone, unilateral transfers within families, etc.* This was written by an economist in 1892 who according to Graeber only improved on Adam Smith work "by adding various mathematical equations". The text above was from Carl Menger, one of the most well known economist of the century and one of the founders of modern economics. Not just that, even on that wrote precisely on many of the questions Graeber book addresses. So exactly the kind of person Graeber seems to be wanting to debate and dismiss. The perfect pillar of modern (as in Post-Marginal) economics to shoot down. Why then would Graeber claim that he only "adding various mathematical equations"? I seems that the only explanation is that he look up the wrong person on wikipedia, as there is another person with the same name who was a mathematician. Nobody who read even an introduction to modern history of economic thought would make that mistake. He clearly doesn't have a clue who Carl Menger was and clearly has hasn't read his works. He clearly didn't actually study history of economic thought when writing his book. Rather he had preconceived notion and all he needed was a few selective Adam Smith references and dismiss the rest. At the same time he proudly reference the 1925 'The Gift', to prove how much smarter anthropologists are as they understood the importance of the Gift economy. Compared to economist who according to him only believe in the "Mythical Land of Barter". He speaks with equal authority about some almost unknown tribal societies, 5000 year old city states that we only have very basic data on and 2000s century politics and modern central banking (that he has borderline no understanding off). Given his very clear and explicit bias and he evident willingness to do selective reading and misinterpretation I much rather read on these topics from actual experts without such a clear bias and explicit political message.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

First I had heard of it. But I was surprised to see how he waved it away as simply "garbled" and then moved immediately to threats of lawsuits claiming libel. I agree the sentence is a small one. The author's reaction however only succeeds in drawing even more attention to it.

handrous 5y ago
IIRC, whatever else you think of Graeber's reaction there, "moved immediately to threats of lawsuits claiming libel" does not accurately describe what he did, as that post is part of a much larger exchange.