Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You by David Graeber (2000)
An online debate around David Graeber’s “Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You” uses his definition of anarchism—trust in people’s ability to self-organize without coercive hierarchy—to probe whether such a society could actually work. Participants argue over the meaning of “left,” “liberal,” and “libertarian,” the compatibility of anarchism with capitalism, and how much violence, inequality, and “bad actors” any non-state system could realistically absorb. Many acknowledge that small, decentralized, highly organized communities can function without traditional authority, but question whether similar principles can scale to modern, complex societies or withstand crises without reverting to some form of state power.
Political labels and terminology
- Several comments argue that “left/right” is crude and often propagandistic; US parties are both seen as serving capitalism and militarism.
- Disagreement over whether “left” includes mainstream liberalism: some see liberalism as the core centrist ideology, not genuinely left; others treat much of today’s “left” as liberal in practice.
- “Far-left” is viewed by some as simply “socialist,” by others as a loaded insult meaning “extremist.”
- “Libertarian” originally overlapped with anarchism, but in the US is seen as co‑opted by the right (anarcho‑capitalism, right‑libertarianism).
What anarchism is (and is not)
- Common misunderstanding: anarchists as bomb-throwers or fans of chaos. Several comments stress anarchism as anti‑hierarchy and pro‑self‑organization, not against rules or organization.
- One view: anarchists believe most people can behave reasonably without coercion and can organize communities democratically.
- Another: anarchism resembles radical, small‑government democracy with decentralized, federated decision‑making, not absence of order.
Feasibility, scale, and human nature
- Optimists cite historical/anthropological examples of egalitarian or loosely organized societies and propose federated, recallable delegation as a scalable model.
- Skeptics argue anarchy may only work in small, low‑density, resource‑rich groups; complex societies and advanced technologies require large‑scale structures that tend to become hierarchical.
- Several emphasize that a small minority of violent or exploitative people can ruin non‑coercive systems; statistics and crime examples are invoked.
- Others counter that states have produced mass slaughter and that people often cooperate more in crises than media suggests.
Justice, violence, and property
- Debate over who should handle serious crimes (rape, murder): self‑organized posses vs. state institutions.
- Some see justice as a victim’s right that can be pursued via private means; critics argue this would be disastrous for the weak and isolated.
- Sharp split between anarcho‑capitalist and socialist/anti‑capitalist anarchists:
- Ancap side equates anarchism with voluntary interactions and free trade; property defended privately.
- Socialist side sees capitalism as inherently coercive, dependent on state violence and labor exploitation, thus incompatible with anarchism.
Media and perception
- Comments note media’s incentive to dramatize human depravity and state failure, skewing perceptions of both human nature and political possibilities.
- Some argue this narrative serves existing power structures; others blame audience demand for extreme stories rather than systemic intent.