To sum up, you provided links to read and now you’re saying you don’t agree with the theory you linked. Amazing stuff. You still haven’t explained how any of the writings contradict my points. The ones I’ve read certainly don’t.
Surely since you’ve read and understood this anarchist theory you’re promoting, you’d be able to explain it to others in simple terms. As Albert Einstein famously said, if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself. I’ll leave it as is. :)
You happen to have read one highly polemic and mostly unrelated article of a list of 30 or so articles and now you claim to know everything about it? Don’t make me laugh ;)
I read both Graeber and Russell, neither of them say anything remotely close to eliminating work entirely. You’re evidently unable to explain how that would work either, and just keep deflecting when asked. Don’t make me laugh. ;)
I don’t want to explain it to you as you are obviously too lazy to read up on the real theory. But I also have the feeling you are not reading Russel or Graeber properly, but rather through marxists lenses that distort what they write. Not everything can be seen through such lenses especially not Antiwork, which has nothing to do with marxism.
You wouldn’t be just explaining it to me, you’d be explaining it to everyone on this public forum. This is an idea that you’re promoting and you are evidently unable to explain the basics of this idea.
At least I’m able to articulate my points and ask people to read books if they’re interested in more details. You are unable to articulate what this theory of yours is, which is quite telling.
You’re claiming I don’t understand what Graeber and Russell write, but again fail to articulate what it is that you claim I’m not understanding. The term for what you’re doing here is sophistry.
To sum up, you provided links to read and now you’re saying you don’t agree with the theory you linked. Amazing stuff. You still haven’t explained how any of the writings contradict my points. The ones I’ve read certainly don’t.
Surely since you’ve read and understood this anarchist theory you’re promoting, you’d be able to explain it to others in simple terms. As Albert Einstein famously said, if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself. I’ll leave it as is. :)
I didn’t make that list so it is no wonder I don’t agree with the inclusion of every single article.
So, you sent me a link and now that you realized I’ve read the things you linked to, you’re distancing yourself from it. Amazing stuff.
You happen to have read one highly polemic and mostly unrelated article of a list of 30 or so articles and now you claim to know everything about it? Don’t make me laugh ;)
I read both Graeber and Russell, neither of them say anything remotely close to eliminating work entirely. You’re evidently unable to explain how that would work either, and just keep deflecting when asked. Don’t make me laugh. ;)
I don’t want to explain it to you as you are obviously too lazy to read up on the real theory. But I also have the feeling you are not reading Russel or Graeber properly, but rather through marxists lenses that distort what they write. Not everything can be seen through such lenses especially not Antiwork, which has nothing to do with marxism.
You wouldn’t be just explaining it to me, you’d be explaining it to everyone on this public forum. This is an idea that you’re promoting and you are evidently unable to explain the basics of this idea.
At least I’m able to articulate my points and ask people to read books if they’re interested in more details. You are unable to articulate what this theory of yours is, which is quite telling.
You’re claiming I don’t understand what Graeber and Russell write, but again fail to articulate what it is that you claim I’m not understanding. The term for what you’re doing here is sophistry.