[LudwigNagasena]

It is uncharitable to Marx to simplify his whole work down to a "theory of material conditions". It would be hard to find a modern Western anthropologist or a sociologist who wouldn't be indebted (pun intended) to Marx.

There is a famous phrase attributed to Milton Friedman, "We are all Keynesians now". Even if many economists may not share his view, his mode of thinking has been deeply integrated into modern economics. The similar thing can be said about Marx in relation to the kind of anthropology and sociology Graeber was doing.

[weatherlight]

Perhaps, but David Graeber wasn't a Marxist. David Gaeber was an anarchist who was very sympathetic to/with ideas around direct democracy.

[LudwigNagasena]

Depends on what you mean by "Marxist", I guess. His anarchism is certainly way more Marxist than anarchism of Proudhon or Kropotkin.

[namaria]

Bikeshedding this conversation about culture, anthropology, economics, and philosophy into armchair analysis of scholars' opinions certainly shows how shallow it is to try and dismiss a massive book by a world class academic as "anecdata" because you don't agree with some of its conclusions.

[LudwigNagasena]

I don't understand why you are trying to accuse me of bikeshedding. Seems like you are just trying to dismiss me because I don't agree with you? I've asked numerous times for actual contributions to economics or the history of economic thought based on the book in question. But it seems that people enjoy pontificating about Marxism or "offering a fresh lens" more than a grounded discussion.

[weatherlight]

Sounds like bike shedding to the rest of us. Anthropology has a lot to say about economic history, particularly when it comes to debunking some of the foundational myths like Smith's 'barter theory.' Graeber's take is legit anthropological critique, not armchair econ. His lack of an Econ PhD doesn't negate the value of his work in the least; after all, a lot of what passes for economic 'common sense' is actually historical narrative, which is exactly where anthropology excels. Cross-pollination between disciplines is how we get past stale paradigms.

As per 'direct contributions,' to what? This is vacuous. If you're looking for direct policy changes, new economic theories, or shifts in economic practice explicitly derived from that book, the evidence might be less concrete given the book's recent publication and its cross-disciplinary nature.

if contributions are broadly understood as influencing the discourse, prompting reevaluation of economic history, or enriching economic thought with anthropological insights, then Graeber's work has clearly made an impact. The book has been widely discussed and cited in various academic and non-academic circles, suggesting that it has stimulated thought and conversation, although not be immediately quantifiable in economic terms.

It's worth noting that the impact of theoretical work often becomes more apparent over time as it permeates through discussion, critique, and successive scholarship.

I'd also like to point out that economic anthropology is an academic field in it own right, for which Graber is considered a significant contributor. Graeber's work, in particular, has been pivotal in encouraging economists, historians, archeologist, etc, to think more critically about the origins and functions of debt, money, and economic systems. Economies are complex, culturally rich phenomena, not just market transactions (something Econ models often miss.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology

[LudwigNagasena]

> Anthropology has a lot to say about economic history, particularly when it comes to debunking some of the foundational myths like Smith's 'barter theory.'

It is not a foundational myth. It is certainly a topic of interest for some economists, but it is not something that you would get asked during your qualifying exams. Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are far more foundational.

> a lot of what passes for economic 'common sense' is actually historical narrative, which is exactly where anthropology excels

Everything is a text, therefore a literary studies professor is an expert on everything. Everything is a result of human action, therefore an economist is an expert on everything. Everything is a result of social interaction, therefore a sociologist is an expert on everything.

That’s a dangerous attitude that’s unfortunately common among such fields as sociology, psychology, literary studies and economics. It overstates the expertise of people in the field and mystifies the field itself.

Being an anthropologist doesn’t make you an expert on QM and GR just because the history of physics is a history of narratives.

> Cross-pollination between disciplines is how we get past stale paradigms.

There are lots of people who already do that out there. Economics is ripe with such examples, both past and recent. But being hostile and acting as if you know more than people who study the subject for a living leads nowhere.

> I'd also like to point out that economic anthropology is an academic field in it own right, for which Graber is considered a significant contributor.

And so is economics, for which Graeber is not considered a significant contributor. And that’s okay. The gift economy of Madagascar and the technicalities of the federal reserve system are very different topics. And it is possible to know a lot about one of them without knowing much about the other.

[namaria]

You make my point perfectly by accusing me of marxism out of the blue when I never even manifested any opinion on anything even near it.