Subscribe to Read | $0.00
Join today and start reading your favorite books for Free!
Quick and Easy Sign Up!
It takes less then 1 minute to sign up, then you can enjoy Unlimited eBooks.
Join today and start reading your favorite books for Free!
Quick and Easy Sign Up!
It takes less then 1 minute to sign up, then you can enjoy Unlimited eBooks.
Read Anywhere and on Any Device!
Rate this book!
Write a review?
I help teach Hebrew. Today our class topic was technology companies (very Israeli). While other people discussed the benefits of such companies, I'm just there like "let's discuss why we're working so much! Here's how to say capitalism in Hebrew! Is our modern world worth it guys?? Who wants to move into the woods and live a life free of responsibility??? Why is our world like this?????" Which brings me to this book. I'm hesitant to call myself an anarchist because man, I do not feel like I know...
In this short book David Graeber maps out the research agenda that he has zealously pursued over the last fifteen years, punctuated by milestone publications such as Debt, The Democracy Project and Bullshit Jobs, amongst others. Graeber’s leading question is: "What sort of social theory would actually be of interest to anarchists, i.e. those who are trying to help bring about a world in which people are free to govern their own affairs?” Anarchists are, by the very nature of their political proj...
To begin with, I'm not entirely convinced that anarchism is possible, but David Graeber’s opened my eyes to how anthropology can help those persuading human freedom (including myself). Since they are the only scholars who know anything about stateless societies (many having lived in such societies), they are aware that the assumption that people would just kill each other in the absence of a state is completely untrue. The first step towards an anti-capitalist society, as Graeber presents it, i
the bits about actual anthropology were good but I wanted more of an answer to my question of how to build counterpower that's not a bunch of cliquey punks. still worth a squiz, though
“But the anarchists were right. I think anthropologists should make common cause with them. We have tools at our fingertips that could be of enormous importance for human freedom. Let's start taking some responsibility for it” (105).Despite it seeming compelling and obvious, this is one of the the only two books that I'm aware of that explore the points of congruence between anthropology and anarchism (the other one is Harold Barclay's “People Without Government” -- soon to be reviewed). It's a
In this short, 100 page book, that's worth its weight in gold tenfold, Graeber both calls out the field of social sciences, specifically anthropology, to come out of its academic ivory tower, break down the walls imposed by entrenched ideas of the nation-state and capitalist realism and use its large potential to present alternatives for how we can conceive our social, economic and political lives.Graeber articulates and expands on the concept of counterpower, which has been embraced by other ra...
A bit small and incoherent and reminded me of Bakunin's writings. The word ''fragments'' on the title is of course self evident of the book's structure. David Graeber is an anthropologist and also an anarchist. He believes that anthropologists possess the tools and theories that could help shape an anarchistic vision of the future. He doesn't paint this future in any significant detail though, but he does give some startings points -which aren't new in any way.As I've said, it's largely incohere...
“ Even if one compares the historical schools of Marxism, and anarchism, one can see we are dealing with a fundamentally different sort of project. Marxist schools have authors. Just as Marxism sprang from the mind of Marx, so we have Leninists, Maoists, Trotksyites, Gramscians, Althusserians… (Note how the list starts with heads of state and grades almost seamlessly into French professors.) Pierre Bourdieu once noted that, if the academic field is a game in which scholars strive for dominance,
such an enjoyable read, how can you say no? graeber playfully sets an intellectual table with anarchism, anthropology, Western colonialism, the "anti-globalization" movement, democracy, primitivists, and a bunch of other serious, difficult topics, and proceeds to have a feast of joyous revelry in the limitless potential of human freedom outside of such oppressive institutions as the State and capitalism. 105 pages.
An anarchist and academic challenges other anarchic academics to bring it harder in the academy. I love Graeber's approach to theory: approachable, comprehensible, practical, and pure. Pure, not as in uncomplicated, but pure as in grounded in a simple opposition to oppression and embrace of all people as people. Short enough to read yourself. The ending was particularly strong and nice.Full text available here.Discussion from the (A) Book Club on Goodreads here.[read it in Ethiopia]
At the beginning, Graeber had some interesting points and lines to draw with anthropology, anarchy and the academy. It seems that while operating within the confines of the ivory tower, he understands the limits of anthropology and academia. His background in anarchy however seems to stick out as well, seeing as he did his time in the anti-globalization era it seems fitting that he is attached to strictly non-violent symbolic forms of protest, which taints his practice of anthropology and effect...
What a wonderful piece of work. Insightful, inspiring, and accessible. I loved the anthropological direction taken in regards to anarchism. Before reading Graeber, I hadn't encountered anything similar.
now i am just shamelessly plugging and kissing butt
"Another world is possible"(quote in the book, pulled from a Brazilian folk song)I really enjoyed this book. One of the "initial assumptions" (and there are only two) that Graeber lays is the need for optimism: "[the] unavailability of absolute knowledge [...] makes a commitment to optimism a moral imperative: Since one cannot know a radically better world is not possible, are we not betraying everyone by insisting on continuing to justify, and reproduce, the mess we have today? And anyway, even...
