That Scott presents as his major finding that eons separated the development of cultivation and the rise of the state not only cuts against any conclusion that the pathways into state bondage were inevitable; it also goes far to undermine Scott’s entire outlook. The fact that nothing about the innovations of fire and agriculture and “incipient urbanism” necessarily required states and their iniquities means that many of the good things “civilization” has brought are indeed separable from its greatest evils and therefore do not necessarily deserve the opprobrium implied by both the title and the argument of his book. Though Scott does not observe it, the first half of Against the Grain reads like a paean to a different style of agricultural civilization in the making: the best of a stateless hunting-and-gathering society tweaked in the name of bread. It also suggests a lesson that Scott would never draw: that the state itself has never been given on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. He acknowledges that there is no decisive moment when the state emerged and no single feature that defines it. In his challenge to the inevitability of the state after fire and even agriculture, Scott misses the chance to develop a theory of the variety of governments, not only in the past but also in the future.
This has a hint of a valid criticism, but isn't logical enough to get there. I haven't read this book, but in general Scott is most critical of the state and its direct effects, and mostly considers agriculture and urbanity guilty by association. It is no contradiction of this position to observe that these behaviors emerged before the state did (after all, many theorists consider these prerequisites to the creation of the state), nor does the proposition that some states could be of net benefit to humans necessarily follow.
TFA explicitly associates Scott's leftist anarchism with Those Damned Libertarians. In this context that's (unintentionally) amusing, since it reads so much like the standard anti-libertarian status quo-affirming don't-waste-your-vote-also-don't-say-voting-is-a-waste screeds that are so banal where politics is discussed online. When one's response to criticism of a way of life is a desperate "it's not that bad!" rather than a curious "how could it improve?", it's clear that one values the maintenance of power over the refinement of its exercise.
This has a hint of a valid criticism, but isn't logical enough to get there. I haven't read this book, but in general Scott is most critical of the state and its direct effects, and mostly considers agriculture and urbanity guilty by association. It is no contradiction of this position to observe that these behaviors emerged before the state did (after all, many theorists consider these prerequisites to the creation of the state), nor does the proposition that some states could be of net benefit to humans necessarily follow.
TFA explicitly associates Scott's leftist anarchism with Those Damned Libertarians. In this context that's (unintentionally) amusing, since it reads so much like the standard anti-libertarian status quo-affirming don't-waste-your-vote-also-don't-say-voting-is-a-waste screeds that are so banal where politics is discussed online. When one's response to criticism of a way of life is a desperate "it's not that bad!" rather than a curious "how could it improve?", it's clear that one values the maintenance of power over the refinement of its exercise.