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 w

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.