‘The’ printed an article “Human History Gets a Rewrite A brilliant new account upends bedrock assumptions about 30,000 years of change.
By William Deresiewicz
OCTOBER 18, 2021”

My views on this article and the book mentioned are as follows:

  1. William Deresiewicz’s view of the narrative (if considered from Marxist point of view) is not correct. Thus, the views of The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity is not Marxist. The view of “The story goes like this” is not Marxist!

  2. Those who are not Marxist always point to the “Kings” and “empires” such as Agamemnon and his empire- but it is made clear that he was not a king as such but a transitionary figure (in the iron age) whereby even Achilles-and others- does not obey him. They are nobles obeyed by the community-so long as they do a good job! Slavery and thus the state is not yet there. Its beginnings are there.

  3. Thus hierarchy which every organised society need and have (even in the smallest of tribes) is not bureaucracy for it is not politics-not state. All Trots and Anarchos are in love with this simple confusion. Politics and state and thus bureaucracy are different from organisation, hierarchy and obeying people-mostly elders - due to respect that they deserve. Pre slavery societies have this and that is not state and politics-only genius anarchos confuse the two- as we know anarchists are upside down bourgeois.

  4. and of course the choice but the choice is nothing new - (not of the choices Mrs Thatcher the milk snatcher talked of, but choices anarco the genius talk of …). Anarchos always come up with this: if only we had chosen to avoid capitalism…none of this would have happened. We have a choice thus choose wisely-as an anarcho genius would choose…no determinism…Of course all this rely on not asking a simple question: why one-one socıety- choose that way but not another way?..The only choice given here is that we did not have the genius anarchos-who could have choosen the rıght path- when we have diverted to the wrong path..What Marxists propose is simple: sooner or later we end up choosing what the material conditions and thus the economics –classes- based on these material conditions-these techniques of production, forces us to choose: we can come up with such brilliant ideas as getting rid of the bourgeoisie as and when the material conditions are there for us to come up with such ideas. Thus create the organısatıons to do the job. With the anarchists you do not need such things. All one need is the genius anarchist who could have arrived say 10000 years ago and he would have made the right choice and we would have gone straight to the modern communism, and avoided all these wars and hunger and bourgeois assholes-oh did I remind you that an anarchist is an upside down bourgeois-a bourgeois standing on his head!?

  5. There are many organisations able to produce plenty for all its members-including the aristocrats that are the respected rulers of such societies. Think of pacific islands or the Amazonian societies where the aristocrats were much respected by the whole community and community was still communistic. All the communities that Athens and Sparta turned into slaves were also such. This idea that separates state from class division-and this seems to be the main thing regarding state in this book, is typical of anarchists as and confirms the Marxist view that anarchos are bourgeois standing on their head! Anything will do so long as state is declared to be a choice, a choice of an organisation or other, and that all of these have nothing to do with class differences arising as a result of development of production. Anything so long as it is not Marxist. Society gets organised this way or that due to “choices”. Here is your Marxism hating anarchism!

  6. anarchists are really the bourgeois- they were bourgeois standing on their head ages ago, they are now bourgeois standing and not standing on their head at the same time, that is bourgeois who cannot even stand on their head anymore!

  7. “The book is something of a glorious mess” says William Deresiewicz. If what he has written about the book is correct his conclusion is also correct. But than so is William Deresiewicz a glorious mess. . But then this mess is very useful for the bourgeoisie! Worth a lot of money that mess is!

    Nusret sen