• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      I’d argue it’s very much relevant to theory behind the whole concept. I’ve read Geaeber, and I’m not jumping to any conclusions here as far as I can tell. Nowhere does Graeber argue that work as a concept would disappear in the foreseeable future. I don’t see Russell arguing anything of the sort either. Since you’re clearly caught up on the theory, why don’t you address the point I made for everyone’s benefit.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          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. :)

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              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.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  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. ;)