> But this “simplistic” conception of the state is also the conception that fuels or articulates the anarchist critique of the state, from William Godwin to Mikhail Bakunin to Emma Goldman. As I argue in my book Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory (2008), state power rests on violence and coercion; violence and coercion, to be defensible, require a moral justification; social contract theory and all other attempts in this regard are pathetically inadequate. Therefore, there should be no political state. In late Graeber, this looks simplistic and nonempirical. “The state” is a concept that falls apart under analysis and should be abandoned. Of course, that makes anti-statism just as senseless, for what is an anti-statist fighting against, really?

i can't say i follow this reading. conceptually dismantling the state doesn't put "anti-statists" out in the cold - rather it makes the "archists" all the more absurd

i found graber's writing to remain quite compatible with modern anarchist theory, which has not stood still since the 19th century, but has synthesized nihilism and anthropology with those historical traditions of communal libertarianism and insurrection.

and then the article mentions the corbyn thing and then just kind of... ends? i expected more.

the labour association was certainly disappointing for many folks but only a purist would believe it immediately implies some kind of fundamental conversion. and historically it is not unusual for anarchists to have some encounter with "politics" especially for some tactical reason.

he also supported the ypg, which is an armed organization dedicated to establishing a "monopoly on violence" over significant territory in their three-front war against turkey, isis, and the syrian arab army. certainly not quite comparable to an opposition party that isn't making policy or commanding british soldiers, but i've never seen anyone count the ypg against him as an anarchist, by reference to the dictionary.