OK. Maybe "post-modern" sums it up better? Definitely writing with an agenda.

"That hunter-gatherer lifestyle was so nice: people would never give it up unless they were compelled!"

OK, that rates a blog post. Not a whole book.

You're missing a lot of nuance. Graebers work is great. Tons of evidence-based discussions and thorough logic. What you've written here is even really deserving of a forum post.

A Marxist wouldn't have written a book called Bullshit Jobs, since the implication "workers don't do anything useful" isn't very Marxist.

Ok, so, he wrote another book with a bad name hence this other one is bad too. Nice logic.

I had no idea that scott wrote « bullshit job » haha.

But since he’s also the chair of agrarian studies at Yale since the 90´s… I will trust him of history of agriculture.

Even he might chalenge the holy Washington consensus on economics.

> Ok, so, he wrote another book with a bad name hence this other one is bad too. Nice logic.

Did I say that…?

I think generally people have useful jobs (to someone) but that doesn't stop them from complaining about it.

Yeah but that chain of comments was originally talking about James C. Scott "against the grain". A historian specialized in early agricultural history and thus relevant here in that comment section about early human history.

I even got confused and thought that Scott wrote "bullshit job", but it's Graeber.

In regards to jobs: I think it's perfectly conceivable that one job is useful to a few, but generally pointless for society.

Catchy title.