Thanks, I finally looked at the twitter posts and read Ingo Stützle's article. Graber's "touchiness" is nothing compared to Isaac Newton, who wrote about a critic (of his theories on colors):
"I see I have made myself a slave to Philosophy, but if I get free
of Mr Linus's business I will resolutely bid adew to it eternally,
excepting what I do for my privat satisfaction or leave to come out
after me. For I see a man must either resolve to put out nothing
new or become a slave to defend it."
Stop publishing? His biographer Westfall seemed to think he was being "touchy":
"Recall that at the time he wrote, Newton's 'slavery' consisted of
five replies to Liege, totalling fourteen printed pages, over the
course of a year."
But probably anyone who's posted online knows this frustration; and why spend your time with critics who don't seem constructive?
Anyway, Stützle's article looks misleading and odd. (For instance, he wrote, "However, one searches in vain in Graeber’s work for an exact determination of what capitalism is." But _Debt_ openly says, "All this raises the question of what 'capitalism' is to begin with, a question on which there is no consensus at all." Then it goes on to offer both a socialist view ("that system whereby those who own capital command the labor of those who do not"), and a pro-capitalist view. After that, _Debt_ makes an argument which depends only on a characteristic of capitalism that virtually anyone can agree on, not taking on too many ("ontological") commitments in a history book which is, after all, about debt and not capitalism.)
As for Callinicos, what's wrong with killfiling someone who's acting as a troll? Obviously he doesn't speak with the words of someone interested in building a constructive relationship.
As for Doug's comment that "I'm guessing, David, that almost everyone reading this, including you, is a wage laborer and not a 'slave'"... _Debt_ mentions: "bootblacks, prostitutes, butlers, soldiers, pedlars, chimneysweeps, flower girls, street musicians, convicts, nannies, and cab drivers". I don't know what all those jobs were like, but certainly housewives and students read tweets. (Note that children work under command all day, as part of an investment in future production. And housewives are of course the common example of unremunerated labor.)
As for _Debt_... if you read no other text, you'll probably have a skewed view of capitalism. (But you shouldn't do that; and there's zillions of books on capitalism's deadly flaws.)
All the best,
Tj
PS: Another odd thing about Stützle's article is "Graeber’s account exhibits a rather vague understanding of capitalism, and in accordance with the anarchist tradition assigns a dominant role to the state." Wait, the state isn't "a" dominant institution? Putting that aside, just take a look at "An Anarchist FAQ". It mentions capitalism way before the state, and even says things like, "For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism 'attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State.'" Clearly, capitalism is the main focus for very many anarchists, though people with all sorts of agendas claim it's instead government. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
So unless Stützle is pro-state, I'm not sure what he's saying.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:21 AM, lasko <lascaux at riseup.net> wrote:
> Interesting twitter exchange over the review, with Graeber perceiving
> "hostile" intent and others perceiving Graeber's touchiness.
>
> Aptly enough, there's a recent Adam Kostko blog post about that dynamic:
>
> "I’d contend that this problem is a direct result of the immediate
> experience of the internet. We all tend to experience the online space as an
> intimate and personal one. Everything there is somehow “for us” — and if
> it’s unwelcome, it’s an intrusion on us...
>
> Meanwhile, even as we are experiencing everything as taking place within our
> most intimate personal space, the personhood of the other is stripped down
> to bare text. What is important here is not simply that the face-to-face
> encounter that would constrain aggressive behavior is absent, but also that
> this text is an invasion of our personal space. If it’s too long, it’s an
> imposition. If it isn’t responding to our messages in a way we feel is
> appropriate, it’s aggressive or offensive.
>
> When people have this gut reaction, it’s not necessarily because they’re bad
> people or impatient or overly touchy — it’s the inalienable structure of the
> internet experience as such."
>
> http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/a-phenomenology-of-online-assholes-with-practical-tips/