• ZMoney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn’t quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It’s transparently personal.

        Academics write books. Get over it.

      • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal from what I remember. He really has a thing for anarchists. I’ll trust these critics more when they do published rebuttals. I’m pretty sure several chapters in this book were published in some journals.

        • ZMoney@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah it’s a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I’m like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it’s just as academic as “Debt” was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it’s a way for critics to get their name out there.

          • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces. I also find it unconvincing lmao.