4 ms·

As a layperson to history, to me this reads like it's not really taking much into account beyond ancient history. If these more egalitarian societies showed up

As a layperson to history, to me this reads like it's not really taking much into account beyond ancient history. If these more egalitarian societies showed up in the same time as other notable early ancient cities, doesn't that just mean that there wasn't yet a "settled" commonality of society building? In other words, "traditionally" unequal cities were just as experimental as these egalitarian ones. For better or worse one grew more popular than the other, or had more power available for expansion (centralisation of control under a handful of people or royalty), and thus would grow to dominate their environment and these other kinds of cities. So yes, these old sites can show us a more equal world, but they also don't exist in a vacuum. They will inevitably have to compete with other urban structures as time goes on. Resources either become scarce and need new sources, or your competition is expansionist. The ones with pointier sticks and faster decision makers would win.

apsurd 3y ago
The idea that there existed diverse experiments throughout history of how people chose to organize is one of the main takeaways from reading Graeber. I agree with his premise that we all seem to hold the assumption - and are taught rather intentionally so - that history is a linear march toward progress. Our modern constructs are therefore by definition the best that's existed and certainly better than what came before. The point I took is that this neat line toward progress is just not the facts; mostly because we really can't know about history to this neat and clean degree. There were other things. Lots of other things going on! So - the idea that survival of the fittest makes a strong argument to prove our modern constructs more fit - I think Graeber is really just trying to tell us hey we can't really know that, history is extremely lossy, to us. Careful not to throw out our entire civilization's experiments out with the bath water.
- TheCapeGreek 3y ago
  I like this view of it, thank you.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > the assumption - and are taught rather intentionally so - that history is a linear march toward progress One meaning of "Modernism" is the belief that there's a general path history does/should take.
vintermann 3y ago
Graeber pointed out, (recalling from memory here), that in the fertile crescent extremely egalitarian societies existed for a really long time, I think over athousand years? So wouldn't it be hubris to say that this sort of society is inherently doomed? After all, our institutions are not remotely that old, or stable.

apsurd 3y ago

The idea that there existed diverse experiments throughout history of how people chose to organize is one of the main takeaways from reading Graeber. I agree with his premise that we all seem to hold the assumption - and are taught rather intentionally so - that history is a linear march toward progress. Our modern constructs are therefore by definition the best that's existed and certainly better than what came before. The point I took is that this neat line toward progress is just not the facts; mostly because we really can't know about history to this neat and clean degree. There were other things. Lots of other things going on! So - the idea that survival of the fittest makes a strong argument to prove our modern constructs more fit - I think Graeber is really just trying to tell us hey we can't really know that, history is extremely lossy, to us. Careful not to throw out our entire civilization's experiments out with the bath water.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago
I like this view of it, thank you.
Terr_ 3y ago
> the assumption - and are taught rather intentionally so - that history is a linear march toward progress One meaning of "Modernism" is the belief that there's a general path history does/should take.

vintermann 3y ago

Graeber pointed out, (recalling from memory here), that in the fertile crescent extremely egalitarian societies existed for a really long time, I think over athousand years? So wouldn't it be hubris to say that this sort of society is inherently doomed? After all, our institutions are not remotely that old, or stable.