TLDR: Statists measure success based on the state, so in order to convince them that anarchism us successful we would need to stop being anarchists.
"For anarchists who do know something about anthropology, the arguments are all too familiar. A typical exchange goes something like this:
Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?
Anarchist: Sure. There have been thousands. I could name a dozen just off the top of my head: the Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, the Vezo…
Skeptic: But those are all a bunch of primitives! I’m talking about anarchism in a modern, technological society.
Anarchist: Okay, then. There have been all sorts of successful experiments: experiments with worker’s self-management, like Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift economy, like Linux; all sorts of political organizations based on consensus and direct democracy…
Skeptic: Sure, sure, but these are small, isolated examples. I’m talking about whole societies.
Anarchist: Well, it’s not like people haven’t tried. Look at the Paris Commune, the revolution in Republican Spain…
Skeptic: Yeah, and look what happened to those guys! They all got killed!
The dice are loaded. You can’t win. Because when the skeptic says “society,” what he really means is “state,” even “nation-state.” Since no one is going to produce an example of an anarchist state—that would be a contradiction in terms—what we’re really being asked for is an example of a modern nation-state with the government somehow plucked away: a situation in which the government of Canada, to take a random example, has been overthrown, or for some reason abolished itself, and no new one has taken its place but instead all former Canadian citizens begin to organize themselves into libertarian collectives. Obviously this would never be allowed to happen. In the past, whenever it even looked like it might—here, the Paris commune and Spanish civil war are excellent examples—the politicians running pretty much every state in the vicinity have been willing to put their differences on hold until those trying to bring such a situation about had been rounded up and shot."
Good question!
Does it seem that the author enjoys debating? Why would an author who does not enjoy debate write something about debate?
This is a weird and condescending way of engaging with comrades.
How so?
Try again. The intended audience for my comment isn’t you.
i was sincerily asking what you thought the author was saying. answering questions with a question is kind of rude. is your point that debat = bad? why is enjoying debate relevant to this conversation
I’m not a chatbot, I don’t spit out answers on demand.
My point is not about debate, it’s that the intended audience is not you. Which means you cannot understand what it is trying to say unless you read it from the perspective of an anarchist.
The author is telling anarchists that you can’t convince statists that anarchism is a good idea because they do not respect things that don’t adhere to western imperial values.
Shouldn’t a revolutionary movement attempt to make itself understandable and convince everyone? Why the focus on the intended audience?
What are the western imperial values that you are referring to? Because all the “statist” successes I would reference come from the periphery. As another commenter said, statist measure success in healthcare, literacy, employment, defence of the revolution. I wouldn’t call them western imperial values.
If you are measuring success outside of the creation of a state then you are not the demographic being discussed.
dont you think thats somwhat misrepresenting graeber’s example skeptic position though? the skeptic is asking for an example of successful anarchist large scale organisation. and it is graeber who decides that he cant win the debate because he correctly notes that without a state you cant defend revolutionary change. graeber says that to a skeptic success = state, because state = revolution defended.
i think that the skeptic position is more like success = revolution defended, and the fact that it can only be ensured through a state is secondary. the failure of anarchism is not the failure to produce a state, it is the failure to defend their revolutionary societies. what do you think?
Good question, that’s likely because this is out of context and he spends several paragraphs after this section breaking this down further. This Socratic dialogue is actually the introduction to a chapter of a fairly small pamphlet which is available on theanarchistlibrary.
While I could try to sum up his thoughts in a few sentences I don’t have the energy to effortpost at the moment.
i am curious so i will read it in full
Let me know what you think!
You are genuinely using “statist” as a descriptively worthless snarlword if you characterize it as synonymous with western imperialism.