How to change the course of human history

The notion that far more social possibilities exist than the liberalism of the last couple of centuries would have us imagine helps us as well as Graeber. Imperial Energy might point out the complete absence of war in Graeber's discussion. In a sense, though, it doesn't make much difference--the differences are ultimately theoretical. OK, let's say there were municipal councils in ancient Mexico, and it's members were elected, and could be removed, or abused, or whatever. I would say that either their decision making was essentially determined in advance by traditions preserved by priests, generals, etc., within an order that ultimately has a high priest or supreme general, in which case the decisions they make are ultimately trivial, or serve some other purpose; or, like liberal democracy, or ancient Roman and Greek republics, they were a vehicle for unstable and unsustainable power struggles (or, of course, some combination of both). None of this can be empirically tested, and without extensive written records, we are all free to make what we want of all this very interesting knowledge--and Graeber certainly takes advantage of that freedom. But absolutism may take on lots of different forms as well, and it's very good to be granted this freedom to open up various discussions. Unless we imagine a social order in which everyone spontaneously agrees on everything--if not actual decisions, at least the means of making the decisions (but for how long is it possible to agree on the means but disagree on the decisions?)--then we are back to theorizing and formalizing the actual hierarchies involved.

---

By the way, Graeber and his co-authors are responding to comments by readers--so far, a couple of interesting things, but not too much--it's worth keeping an eye on, though.

---

In a way, his last paragraph gives away the game--at first, I thought maybe it was a nod to feminism, but the claim that cities and confederacies can be egalitarian but families and households cannot means that the egalitarian cities and confederacies are in fact held together by the hierarchical families and households. And families and households could obviously be quite extended--most if not all monarchies are in fact "families and households." Does Graeber really imagine it's easier to do away with (or dramatically transform) families and households than with cities and confederacies? If there's a conflict between the two, which will subordinate the other?

---

True, but the "harder" part looks to the future: "Here too, we predict, is where the most difficult work of creating a free society will have to take place." All this new historical evidence doesn't seem to have provided many models for this transformation. So, instead of "cannot," I'm willing to say "have, as far as we know, almost never been." And so far the "work" of creating more egalitarian families has involved pulverizing families: from extended families to the nuclear family, fro the nuclear family to liberated singles and various forms of transient cohabitation, along with fewer and fewer children.

---

Anyway, welcome!