7 ms·
He fully addresses that in the book. Don't take my word for it, I don't have his explaining skills. But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental
by diego_moita 5y ago
He fully addresses that in the book. Don't take my word for it, I don't have his explaining skills.
But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Equality under a ruler or rebellion against abuses is not the same as thinking the whole society as composed of equals. Think of no-slavery, equality among genders, sexual freedom, etc. Even thinkers that thought about equality before Iluminism (e.g. Thomas More) didn't go that far.
I strongly recommend you reading, at least, chapter 2 in the book. Is way deeper than what I explain.
- Eebocia 5y agoThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28
- xhevahir 5y agoTo give one example, the leaders of the Münster Rebellion of 1534 certainly weren't content with "less inequality."
- LudwigNagasena 5y agoHow would contact with “First Nations” in any way help European elites to come to the concept of the radical equality you are describing? They neither had nor believed in any of these things.
- panick21_ 5y ago> But what he addresses is radical equality, as a fundamental value, as opposed to "less inequality". Typical Graeber. Total nonsense. Radical equality has multi-origins in religious cults for 1000s of years. It has been part of 'Western' history writing for almost as long as we have historical narratives. Pretty much as far as we can tell these ideas are resurfacing over and over in every big culture. For most we have no documentation but its clear there and has been documented lots of time.