[lbo-talk] A Critical Review of David Graeber's Debt

[shag carpet bomb]

At 01:54 PM 6/17/2012, Eric Beck wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Tayssir John Gabbour <tjg at pentaside.org> 
>wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
>Yeah. The critical reviews I've read of Debt have mostly amounted to
>criticizing Graeber for the book he didn't write the book, not the one
>he did write.
>
>
> > 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."
>
>This is a tic and a rhetorical device, not a serious appraisal of what
>anarchism mostly believes.

Yeah. I don't really understand this criticism of anarchism at all. Unless 
you're reading some rightwing anarchist stuff - is there any such thing? - 
the discussion of the state is clearly presented as what is usually 
portrayed as a drawback of earlier arguments about capitalism and 
approaches to dismantling capitalism. Or, it's presented as a corrective to 
issues that emerged in attempts to bring about communist revolution or 
manage a socialist state.


>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

--
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)