That's one of those definitions that's so broad as to make the word being defined meaningless. It's always silly when one re-phrases their position into something trivial that no one would disagree with.

▲

victorbjorklund 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Isn’t that all political movements when described in general terms?

▲

wredcoll an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree 100%, but it makes a mildly interesting jumping off point.

My first question is: but what if they don't?

▲

wccrawford an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. Of course they're capable of it. That doesn't mean they will. They have a lot of incentives to behave badly, and there's no way to eliminate them all.

▲

hallole 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

Even under our decidedly non-anarchic regime, people STILL find reasons to behave poorly. I can't imagine removing the disincentive of state punishment would benefit society very much.

▲

rexpop 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Even under our decidedly raging conflagration, people STILL find reasons to burn to a crisp.

The argument—to which I'm quite sympathetic—is that these non-anarchic institutions perpetuate the environment which incentizes "bad behavior."

	▲	hallole 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		By "bad behavior," I mean robbing and murdering and the like, so no need for scare-quotes. Framing the average criminal as the victim of their own circumstances -- which seems to really be in vogue -- is entirely unconvincing to me. > people STILL find reasons to burn to a crisp. You make it sound as if turning to crime is less the criminal's decision and moreso nature's.

▲

gghh an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

As the person who posted the quote, gonna be direct: no idea.

I have to say, I don't identify myself as a anarchist (maybe a bit of a sympathizer), yet I'm middle aged and finding myself a little dissatisfied by many things I see around me, so if I see people making the equation anarchist = degenerate, my immediate reaction is "yeah let's slow it down shall we."

▲

gghh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fair. But I think that statement isn't meant as a strict and precise definition (eg. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or whatever), more like a "gateway" description directed at those who associate anarchism only with utter chaos and "burn the house down" kinda attitudes.

Now, I'm aware that when you need to say something is "gateway" that's a bit of a red flag, i.e. "milk before meat" (describing something as friendly and innocent at first, then only later showing the more aggressive indoctrination) is exactly what cults do. Having said that, I'd grant that the late David Graeber is quite the straight shooter so I think he's in the clear here.

	▲	hallole 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		When I recognize this pattern (reducing one's beliefs to a line of common sense) in someone's writing, I usually take that to be evidence that they're not a quality thinker. I've skimmed the rest of the article you linked from Graeber, and I think my first impression holds up. Like, take this snippet: > Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Woah, mindblown! If you think about it, aren't you kind of a huge hypocrite and elitist for doubting that others can control themselves? Well, no! We know that plenty of people do, in fact, decide to act criminally and selfishly of their own accord. This line, and many others in Graeber's article, are goofy and I wouldn't take him seriously on this topic.

▲

keybored 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> into something trivial that no one would disagree with.

Start a topic on democracy here and at least a handful will argue against regular people governing society and their own lives.

That’s more than no-one.