It's actually "commentator of color." (I know you can't see me, but I don't have European ancestry that I know about.)
> >I happily recommend Doug's work to others. His book on the new economy
> >was very useful to me. And he, as well as others, offered very helpful
> >answers to a recent question of mine.
>
> the why quote Graeber, unqualified by your own comments as to what YOU
> believe when G's comments make Doug and anyone who objects out to be a
> moron? Graeber paints critics as kool aid drinkers, yes? He's saying that
> they engage in sophistry, yes?
>
> Yes.
>
> Fuck Graeber.
Well, YOU clearly engage in sophistry (with all this amusing "moron" business). And since Doug apparently authorizes you to speak for him, he also engages in sophistry by extension.
But not because of the point I was making with Graeber's quote, which is a separate issue.
> >Just because I quote Graber, it doesn't mean I happen to agree with
> >every idea which appears in the quote. (I also quote Bill Gates and
> >others.) The "gift economy" is not my interest; it's his. I will not
> >defend this opinion of his, but I think it's evidence that some
> >anarchists do consider these to be useful case studies.
>
> Advice: make some qualifications when you post the material. it's kind of
> silly to dump an incendiary quote into the middle of the conversation and
> assumed to be someone engaged in constructive discussion.
You fixated on the term "gift economy," which only appeared in his quote, and I did not discuss. If anyone isn't still sickened by your histrionics, here it is again for reference:
> > - - - -
> > Anarchist: Okay, then. There have been all sorts of successful
> > experiments: experiments with worker's self-management, like
> > Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift economy,
> > like Linux; all sorts of political organiza- tions based on consensus
> > and direct democracy...
> >
> > Skeptic: Sure, sure, but these are small, isolated examples. I'm
> > talking about whole societies. [...]
> >
> > The dice are loaded. You can't win. Because when the skeptic says
> > "society," what he really means is "state," even "nation-state."
As for incendiary, that describes you and Doug (again by extension) well.
Tayssir