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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but not nature's—the built environment and socially constructed institutions of modern civilization.
Conservative political scientists like James Q. Wilson have historically argued that the root of crime is an essential moral and cultural failure, rather than just a byproduct of poverty. They maintain that social programs squander investments on those who will simply continue their destructive ways, and that society instead needs punitive mechanisms to regulate inherently destructive human urges.
On the other hand, sociologists and criminologists argue that while the decision to commit a crime belongs to the individual, the conditions that make that decision likely are structural.
Criminologists have long studied "social disorganization" as an engine for bad behavior, analyzing why certain neighborhoods suffer from persistent vandalism, street crime, and violence even as the specific individuals living there change over the decades. Critics of this theory often share your skepticism—arguing that high-crime neighborhoods might simply be the result of "birds of a feather flocking together," and that individual choices or family nurturing are far more important than neighborhood effects—but, ultimately, research demonstrates that people are profoundly motivated not only by their own choices, but by the circumstances and choices of those around them. When community social capital is high, networks of trust enforce positive standards and provide mentors and job contacts. When those adult networks and institutions break down, individuals are left to their own devices, making them far more likely to act on shortsighted or self-destructive impulses.
While it doesn't explain 100% of crime, this is just true. You change people's circumstances such that crime isn't rational, and they're less likely to do it.
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."
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.
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.
My first question is: but what if they don't?