/theory/ general

Discuss theory here.

Is David Graeber's Debt: The first 5000 years worth reading? I keep seeing people shill for it but I wanna make sure I'm not gonna invest myself in a meme.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/the-make-believe-world-of-david-graeber.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Wow, I actually finished that book a couple days ago. I thought it was a worthwhile read, and it's helped me to see debt in a new light, which I suppose was the point of the book.
Why would it be a "meme"?

Meme is generally used in a derisive way meant to convey that the ideas presented are surface level and, for lack of a better work, basic.

I've got a pdf if you want it for free. Haven't had the chance to read it myself, but even that leftcom islamic guy liked it and he got triggered by anything that wasn't marxist theory or homoerotic cartoons.

Just autistic skepticism on my part. I'll go read it, thanks.

already have it comrade, but thanks

I understand that. It's still a poor form of communication, like calling someone a cuck.

Debt is worth reading for anyone with anti-capitalist sentiments. It debunks much of the mythos around liberalism.

tbh it's worth reading for anyone with pro-capitalist sentiments as well. it's a very sober study of the emergence of debt and money

Yes it is an extremely detailed and well sourced work that comprehensively describes the rise of debt and money and its use as a tool of capitalist imperialism

Its my favourite book if that counts for anything, that and Mutual Aid

I'm interested

Who?

What's Holla Forumss opinion of Graeber? Also, is still as popular among Anarchists as he was a few years ago? I remember during Occupy he was practically their Messiah. Also, slightly related, what's Holla Forumss take on Parecon and are there any Anarchists who still shill for it?

Read the first couple chapters at least, they really get the big point across. Go through the rest if you like it.

All I know is I fucking hate it when authors pack paragraphs into endnotes. It makes me flip to the back of the book constantly to read every single one of them and consequently makes the whole book a chore to read through. If you have something meaningful to say then put it in the damn chapters.

Also, and I apologize for my ignorance, I'm interested in Anarchism but have no background in it, but in what way is Parecon different from Anarcho-Communism and Syndicalism? I've also seen people compare it to Mutualism, is that accurate? I know it's off topic from Graeber, but it's contemporary Anarchist theory in a theory thread.

I kind of like that actually, it's like having a tiny reference book inside of the book you're already reading, it's kind of comfy when you think about it.

Nothing to do with Graeber's Debt, but a critique of Graeber's ideas of praxis and the Occupy Movement, it's insightful and worth reading, written by Andrew Kliman, I figure it could generate some discussion, or in the least some anons might enjoy the read.

Kek, forgot to paste the link.

marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/the-make-believe-world-of-david-graeber.html

Also, Marxist Humanist Initiative is worth checking out in general (and Kliman specifically).

if u know modal algebra check out Capitalism by Anwar Shaikh

monthly review school BTFO'd

What an ignorant article, it fully fails to understand the logic of direct action. Direct action is not just pretending that power does not exist, it is to subvert it by acting as it doesn't exist, and it is to inspire enough people to start doing this in order to change the social relations themselves. Graber talk a lot about this in his writing on kings; they are only kings because they say they are. Sure the kings power is backed by force, but if everybody just stopped believing the king is a king, he would no longer have any power.

There's a lot more misunderstandings in this article, and the fact that the author is trying to lecture Graeber on Marx just shows how clueless he is.

Does no one have a response to this?

Since then Hes released Debt: The First 5000 Years, The Utopia of Rules and The Democracy Project, as far as Anarchists theorists go after Chomsky dies its pretty much him holding out on the academic front. I still revere him.

Speaking as a Marxist I also think he's extremely Based.

It's fuzzy, but full of good tidbits. I don't think he really managed to forge a clear narrative thread though, he relies too much on etymology for that.

Read it, it's fun and pretty easy!

I'd say he does, he clearly shows the birth of systems of credit, their ancient uses and how that developed up to the modern day.

thanks for making this thread

Sure, sure, he shows it fine. It works as a history book. But I don't think his causal explanation was very convincing, with all the references to "infinite cosmic debt/guilt" etc., which I took to be the thread running through it.

it was my pleasure comrade