3 ms·
I abhor graebers writing,but this conclusion is reasonable. "The entire framework of society" I think the point is, that the entire framework of society develop
by protocolture 3y ago
I abhor graebers writing,but this conclusion is reasonable. "The entire framework of society" I think the point is, that the entire framework of society developed to enrich people who are already rich. Palace and Temple economies wouldn't have existed if they didn't raid and ultimately conquer their agrarian neighbors. Surely there's a social framework that doesn't require violence? If there isn't, shouldn't there be?
>Anarchist writers always seem unable to grasp this.
>Obviously I haven't read, like, a majority of anarchist writing.
hmmmmm
- ajkjk 3y ago> hmmmmm I said it that way on purpose! Of course I haven't read the majority of anarchist writing, because all the anarchist writing I did read had this same fatal flaw that made it uninteresting. It'd be crazy to keep reading.
- TotalCrackpot 3y agoSeems like you have higher tendency to rejecting an argument because you don't like it's conclusion, which obviously irrational.
- protocolture 3y agoIts funny because I have the opposite problem. A lot (A LOT) of anarchist writing presupposes a very strong government, but that government gets a pass as not being "The State" because its super nice and gives you bread.