4 ms·

You may have a point, but your terminology is off. Graeber was decidedly against the prevailing economic system, but he was not a Marxist: "He was an anarchist

by olau 4y ago

You may have a point, but your terminology is off. Graeber was decidedly against the prevailing economic system, but he was not a Marxist: "He was an anarchist from the age of 16, according to an interview he gave to The Village Voice in 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber

AlbertCory 4y ago
OK. Maybe "post-modern" sums it up better? Definitely writing with an agenda. "That hunter-gatherer lifestyle was so nice: people would never give it up unless they were compelled!" OK, that rates a blog post. Not a whole book.
- jvb1000 4y ago
  You're missing a lot of nuance. Graebers work is great. Tons of evidence-based discussions and thorough logic. What you've written here is even really deserving of a forum post.
astrange 4y ago
A Marxist wouldn't have written a book called Bullshit Jobs, since the implication "workers don't do anything useful" isn't very Marxist.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Catchy title.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  Ok, so, he wrote another book with a bad name hence this other one is bad too. Nice logic. I had no idea that scott wrote « bullshit job » haha. But since he’s also the chair of agrarian studies at Yale since the 90´s… I will trust him of history of agriculture. Even he might chalenge the holy Washington consensus on economics.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > Ok, so, he wrote another book with a bad name hence this other one is bad too. Nice logic. Did I say that…? I think generally people have useful jobs (to someone) but that doesn't stop them from complaining about it.
    - dopidopHN 4y ago
      Yeah but that chain of comments was originally talking about James C. Scott "against the grain". A historian specialized in early agricultural history and thus relevant here in that comment section about early human history. I even got confused and thought that Scott wrote "bullshit job", but it's Graeber. In regards to jobs: I think it's perfectly conceivable that one job is useful to a few, but generally pointless for society.

by olau 4y ago

AlbertCory 4y ago

OK. Maybe "post-modern" sums it up better? Definitely writing with an agenda. "That hunter-gatherer lifestyle was so nice: people would never give it up unless they were compelled!" OK, that rates a blog post. Not a whole book.

jvb1000 4y ago
You're missing a lot of nuance. Graebers work is great. Tons of evidence-based discussions and thorough logic. What you've written here is even really deserving of a forum post.

astrange 4y ago

A Marxist wouldn't have written a book called Bullshit Jobs, since the implication "workers don't do anything useful" isn't very Marxist.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Catchy title.
dopidopHN 4y ago
Ok, so, he wrote another book with a bad name hence this other one is bad too. Nice logic. I had no idea that scott wrote « bullshit job » haha. But since he’s also the chair of agrarian studies at Yale since the 90´s… I will trust him of history of agriculture. Even he might chalenge the holy Washington consensus on economics.
- astrange 4y ago
  > Ok, so, he wrote another book with a bad name hence this other one is bad too. Nice logic. Did I say that…? I think generally people have useful jobs (to someone) but that doesn't stop them from complaining about it.
  - dopidopHN 4y ago
    Yeah but that chain of comments was originally talking about James C. Scott "against the grain". A historian specialized in early agricultural history and thus relevant here in that comment section about early human history. I even got confused and thought that Scott wrote "bullshit job", but it's Graeber. In regards to jobs: I think it's perfectly conceivable that one job is useful to a few, but generally pointless for society.