Anarchistinės antropologijos fragmentai

by David Graeber, Viktoras Bachmetjevas (vertė)

David Graeber (1961-2020) – šiemet netikėtai miręs pasaulinio garso antropologas ir aktyvistas. Išgarsėjęs savo knygomis apie skolos reiškinį (Skola: pirmieji 5000 metų) bei niekam nereikalingas fiktyvias profesijas (Bullshit Jobs), Graeberis taip pat aktyviai dalyvavo tarptautiniuose aktyvistų judėjimuose, buvo vienas iš Occupy Wall Street ideologų.
„Anarchistinės antropologijos fragmentai“ – ankstyvas Graeberio tekstas, kuriame jis apmąsto politinio angažuotumo ir akademinės veiklos santykį, o taip pat nedviprasmiškai pasisako už anarchizmą, kurį supranta kaip politinę nuostatą, skeptiškai žiūrinčią į bet kokią hierarchiją ir nelygybę.
Ši knyga – tai ne tik refleksija, apibendrinanti jo kaip tarptautinio lygio akademinio antropologo tyrimus, bet ir manifestas, kviečiantis ir kitus akademinės bendruomenės narius nusileisti iš savojo dramblio kaulo bokšto.

Genres: Anthropology, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Theory, Anarchism

128 pages

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

David Rolfe Graeber was an American anthropologist and anarchist.

On June 15, 2007, Graeber accepted the offer of a lectureship in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths College, University of London, where he held the title of Reader in Social Anthropology.

Prior to that position, he was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007.

Graeber had a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City (2002) and membership in the labor union Industrial Workers of the World. He was an core participant in the Occupy Movement.

He passed away in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Reviews

[Prerna · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Graeber wrote that anarchists like to distinguish themselves by what they do and how they organize themselves to go about doing it. Isn't it just apt then that we remember Graeber for all he did and how he did it? (nobody who knows Graeber can forget his involvement in the occupy movement.) He thus seems to be the archetypal anarchist. Anarchism is primarily concerned with forms of practice, and so was Graeber. In fact, Graeber even insists that what anarchism needs even more than high theory is low theory. And this book seems to be an attempt towards constructing a low theory for non-vanguardist revolutionary intellectual practice.

In my review of The Dawn of Everything, I argued for the human condition. But after reading this book, it seems to me that Graeber also thought of the human condition as a problem and argued that eliminating structural inequalities won't simply solve this problem for us. He writes:

Instead, as I’ve suggested, the spectral violence seems to emerge from the very tensions inherent in the project of main-taining an egalitarian society.

But there is obviously a case to be made for egalitarian societies despite the human condition as Graeber does in this book.

In a feminist workshop I attended two months ago, a Marxist professor called Graeber 'merely a progressive' and refused to identify anarchism with the left. The left is just marxists, she said. Man, she needs to read these books.

[Sleepless Dreamer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I help teach Hebrew. Today our class topic was technology companies (very Israeli). While other people discussed the benefits of such companies, I'm just there like "let's discuss why we're working so much! Here's how to say capitalism in Hebrew! Is our modern world worth it guys?? Who wants to move into the woods and live a life free of responsibility??? Why is our world like this?????"

Which brings me to this book. I'm hesitant to call myself an anarchist because man, I do not feel like I know enough about the world for that. However I definitely feel that something has to change with the way we do politics and well, judging by the massive protests all across Israel (and several other countries in the past few months), other people also think so.

This book is fantastic because it was just eye-opening. After every few paragraphs, I had to stop and reevaluate things I'd learned in class. In essence, Graeber's claim is that anthropologists and other social scientists are ignoring the potential of anarchist research. There's this type of mindset that anarchism is irrelevant or has never worked. However, as anthropologists know (apparently), there's no lack of societies that have worked without a government. Therefore, there's no reason why we shouldn't apply our skills and think of ways to prosper without government.
 
My favorite part of this book were the little details that made me rethink things. For example, when we talk about democracy now, we're talking about majoritarian democracy. In many ways, this always creates someone who feels entirely ignored. Even if we do our best to make sure minorities have representation and are protected against prejudice, we still find ourselves with a situation where every law either passes or fails. This doesn't have to be this way. Graeber describes the value of democracy that is built on debates. Rather than a law ending with a pass or fail, we can do politics through conversation and debate, finding the middle ground and making sure no one ends up unhappy. It is the government style of nowadays that stops us from being able to truly focus on compromise rather than beating the opponent. 

When discussing anarchism, people tend to refuse to acknowledge societies due to their smaller scale or lack of recognizable state traits. However, demanding of an anarchist community to fit into state standards is somewhat of an oxymoron. Obviously an anarchy can't fit into those standards because it's not a state. That's the point. 

At the end, Graeber claims anthropologists have avoided speaking up for anarchy because they are hesitant to state big claims about the world. In fact, it is precisely their knowledge that makes them pause before doing so. It made me wonder about the accessibility of academics and the limits of it.

When looking into anthropological examples of anarchy, Graeber describes the Piaroa, the Tiv and Highland Madagascar as examples of anarchist systems that worked. Witchcraft played a role in creating consensus, through belief systems about power and authority. I found those details really fascinating. There are so many problems that we are facing, from climate change to the potential of technology being abused to all the corrupt regimes everywhere and it really does make you wonder, where did we go wrong? Which kind of society would be ideal? What can we learn from this and how can we apply it?

In conclusion, this is a very short book but it's definitely recommended if you'd like to hear a conversation about anarchism in academia and beyond. After months of hearing that states are the best way to go, it was nice to hear this refreshing attitude. I think this book is great for anyone in the Social Sciences as much of it is very relevant.  

What I'm Taking With Me
- My political philosophy class this year was mostly awful and really didn't dig deep into anything, ugh. 
- There's a part where he lists potential anarchist research ideas and ahh, it all sounds so interesting.
-And thinking about anarchism in light of the impending coronavirus economic crisis, there's so much room to wonder how we can do things differently. I really feel that these last few months have forced us to question what's important and what's not. Moreover, they've forced us to ask what's real. Health is real but the necessity of working so many hours is not. So really, what's the true difference between our belief in the stock market and the Piroa's belief in witchcraft? Don't they both help us hold together a specific social order?
- I feel weirdly argumentative today, where's my anarchist commune where we all sit around and debate stuff?

------------------------------------
I'm glad I read this book after exam season because last semester I attempted to write about anarchism in one of my essays and it did not go well. If I had read this book last month, the temptation would have been too strong and I would have written about anarchism again.

Review to come!

[Theo Logos · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Graeber was a clever man. In this short tract he purports to define a not yet existing theory of Anarchist Anthropology, offering:
“a series of thoughts, sketches of potential theories, and tiny manifestos — all meant to offer a glimpse at the outline of a body of radical theory that does not actually exist, though it might possibly at some point in the future.”
This also, of course, describes anarchism itself, which currently does not actually exist as a large scale organizing principle of human society, but might in some possible future. And what Graeber is actually offering is a brilliant primer on anarchism as he dreams it.

Graeber covers a vast amount of ground in these 105 pages. From why there are so few anarchists in academia, to why anthropology in particular lends itself to anarchists theory, Graeber make a case for his proposed discipline. He presents basic anarchist principles:
“Anarchist presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion.”
And pitfalls to avoid:
“Anarchist social theory would have to reject any trace of vanguardism. The role of the intellectual is not to form an elite that can arrive at the correct strategic analysis and then lead the masses to follow.”
Along the way he discusses Capitalism, work, and democracy from the perspective of his theoretical Anarchist Anthropology.

This book is loaded with clever ideas, fresh approaches, and aha moments. It’s packed full of quotable passages. I could write a massive review babbling on about it all, but I will spare you. Graeber wrote it better. Go read this book!

[Philippe · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this short book David Graeber maps out the research agenda that he has zealously pursued over the last fifteen years, punctuated by milestone publications such as Debt, The Democracy Project and Bullshit Jobs, amongst others. Graeber’s leading question is: "What sort of social theory would actually be of interest to anarchists, i.e. those who are trying to help bring about a world in which people are free to govern their own affairs?” Anarchists are, by the very nature of their political project, not interested in a High Theory. Their focus is on mastering a pragmatic approach to 'action learning’ to deal with practical challenges in absence of extraneous coercive mechanisms. Graeber thinks that anthropology is very well suited to contribute to this kind of Low Theory as methodologically the discipline is focused on teasing out hidden symbolic, moral, or pragmatic logics that underlie people's actions.

These logics can be quite impactful in debunking disempowering orthodoxies. Graeber discusses two such orthodoxies: the idea that the transactional economy as we know it today is a more evolved version of the ‘primitive’ barter economy. And then the old evolutionist perspectives that sees the state primarily as a more sophisticated form of organization than what had come before. Anthropologists such as Marcel Mauss and Pierre Clastres have shown that these received ideas are ideological spin. There are examples of communities that have intentionally created social institutions in opposition to the state and capital. It’s not that they didn’t know it; they just wanted to make sure these systematic forms of domination and power never came into existence. Graeber sees in these ideas the basis for a ‘theory of revolutionary counterpower’.

This leads to the idea "that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations, networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine.” Hence, "the process of one system replacing the other will not take the form of some sudden revolutionary cataclysm—the storming of a Bastille, the seizing of a Winter Palace—but will necessarily be gradual, the creation of alternative forms of organization on a world scale, new forms of communication, new, less alienated ways of organizing life, which will, eventually, make currently existing forms of power seem stupid and beside the point. That in turn would mean that there are endless examples of viable anarchism: pretty much any form of organization would count as one, so long as it was not imposed by some higher authority … “

This is the main thrust of Graeber’s argument: discarding the normative break between ‘pre-modern’ and ‘modern’ societies, we get access to a much richer conception of how alternative forms of revolutionary action might work. And it is social theory’s task to shed light on these possible forms. Graeber outlines a research program that should help to put flesh on the bone of such a theory. And once such a theory is in place, it can help anarchists to more effectively pursue their political goals: the revitalization of democracy, the struggle against senseless, disempowering work, and the elemination of North-South inequalities.

[muthuvel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a serious academic work. Please expertise yourself with anthropology if you identify yourself as an anarchist and it is the same case for the other way around.

The book primarily targeted over the particular field study enthusiast practitioners of Social Sciences, the Anthropologists and their effective role that could be paved way for changing the existing norms and values mostly from the notions of nation-states and the market economy in what people call as practical (they also say they know basically how the world works and at end of the day, it isn't all about fairness but only survival). As the title says deliberately, the work gives out a collection of fragments providing brief potential notions on the political philosophy of anarchism, suggestions on certain tenets so as to develop it as much as any other academic discipline. Almost every page has a revolutionary insight that caught me up searching thinking about it taking detours like counterpower thesis, on the origins and nature of what we call modernity, power ignorance functional relations, on blowing up the structural walls through means of relating alienation and solidarity, the theory of mass exodus with Italian lab experiments, ethnographical monographs from Madagascar simple societies to name a few.

At the end of this short work, author being himself an anthropologist critiques the existing ways and practices utilised in the very field which has been pretty much conditioned by ideals of European and western intellectual movements and constrained political structure.

Being the practitioner of anthropology who could bridge the lacuna of discrepancies faced at the structural level as the very discipline uses the bottom to top approach to study, has more potentials to understand people at the grassroots ground social reality and help from their end after all we're for the small guys.

With the upcoming times of the adventures with the (post)modernity, it is highly essential to read the work more than once, to get going for the political philosophers and human decency inclined anthropologists.

"We have tools at our fingertips that could be of enormous importance for human freedom. Let's start taking some responsibility for it."

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

the bits about actual anthropology were good but I wanted more of an answer to my question of how to build counterpower that's not a bunch of cliquey punks. still worth a squiz, though

[Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was another assigned book, and one my professor had raved about reading. It lived up to everything she said, and then some.

I haven't read much about anarchism, and probably am guilty of some of the misconceptions Graeber describes academics displaying on the topic. But in just over 100 pages, he very lucidly lays out a description of the political philosophy, the problems it faces in academic adoption, and the case for anthropological study of anarchist groups. Incidentally, his description makes anarchy sound a lot more appealing than I had thought of it earlier, but consistent with the tenets of anarchism that he describes, he is not proselytizing.

Interspersed throughout are subtle and clever jokes that struck me as an unusual but welcome addition to what could have been a very dry academic text. His title is an apt one: the book comes across in some places as fragmented, and certain concepts which could be the basis for whole monographs sometimes get treated with one or two sentences. For its length and intents, though, this book is a fantastic introduction to the concepts discussed therein.

[Jesse Cohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I could write like this -- powerful, provocative thinking expressed in accessible, playful, persuasive prose.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

“But the anarchists were right. I think anthropologists should make common cause with them. We have tools at our fingertips that could be of enormous importance for human freedom. Let's start taking some responsibility for it” (105).

Despite it seeming compelling and obvious, this is one of the the only two books that I'm aware of that explore the points of congruence between anthropology and anarchism (the other one is Harold Barclay's “People Without Government” -- soon to be reviewed). It's a connection that I became aware of as an undergraduate anthropology student, and on which I've reflected since meeting many anarchists.

For me, anthropology begins with the dismantling of all that we take for granted as natural, human, and universal; “to familiarize the unfamiliar and de-familiarize the familiar.” By way of comparison with other societies, anthropology demonstrates the infinite possibilities for human organization. The importance of anthropology for anarchism is that it demonstrates the possibilities of living in other conditions; namely, in the absence of capitalism or the state.

The beginning of any revolutionary process is the ability to imagine alternatives; to dream. Anarchism is revolutionary because it is, as one anarchist anthology is titled; Demanding the Impossible. “Impossible” because we are unable to imagine life without the institutions so pervasive to us, not least of which being capitalism and the state.

Thanks to anthropology, imagining alternatives to our lived reality doesn't have to remain in our dreams; we can do it by trying to put ourselves in the shoes of those people who walk in a a wholly alternate reality.

It should come as no surprise, then, that there have always been anthropologists who have identified with anarchism or have had anarchist sympathies (Radcliffe-Brown; Mauss). The several publications that explicitly look at the relationship between anarchism and anthropology either identify anthropological studies of autonomous/self-governing societies, identify anarchists in the field of anthropology, or the explore point of convergence between anarchism and anthropology is methodology/practice. The latter is of most interest to me, and on which Graeber most concentrates.

A point of congruence between anthropology and anarchism that I've thought a lot about, and which I think Graeber should have explored more, is how the practice of ethnography can be instructive for the practice of democratic organizational practice. Graeber discusses at length the anarchist ideals behind consensus-building, but doesn't talk about the sort of “consensus” that ethnographic research seeks to establish, through a negotiation of understandings between participant-observer and informant. This is something I plan on writing about some day....

Greaber's principle argument is that anthropologists are the exclusive owners of information about communities and societies that function without states or capitalist economies. It is therefore anthropologists' responsibility to share this information and engage people in dialogue who wish to build liberated relationships and communities.

Graeber also challenges the notion of human history in the same way that Thomas Kuhn challenged scientific history; arguing that human history has always been characterized by continual social change, and revolutions were not “things;” sudden ruptures of homeostasis, but rather gradual accumulation of counterpowers. Graeber builds on Italian Autonomist (see Antonio Negri) ideas about “evasion” or “engaged withrawl,” and makes the memorable statement: “there are times when the stupidest thing one could possibly do is raise a red or black flag and issue defiant declarations. Sometimes the sensible thing is just to pretend nothing has changed, allow official state representatives to keep their dignity, even show up at their offices and fill out a form now and then, but otherwise, ignore them” (64). Glib, and perhaps an overstatement. But his example from indigenous Madagascaran groups is much more compelling than the Crimethinc types.

Find the complete text at: http://www.prickly-pardigm.com/14.pdf

[Törő László Dávid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Szkeptikus: Léteznek egyáltalán példák sikeres anarchizmusra?
Wannabe anarchista: Hát persze. Van számos, jól működő kísérletünk. Munkás önigazgatás, például Mondragon a baszk régióban. Vagy ajándékalapú gazdasági projectek, mint a Linux.
Szkeptikus: Jó, de ezek izolált esetek. Mi a helyzet a társadalmi szinttel?
Wannabe anarchista: Izé, azt nem lehet mondani, hogy az emberek ne próbálkoztak volna már társadalmi szinten is létrehozni ilyen közösségeket. Lásd párizsi kommün, spanyol köztársaságiak…
Szkeptikus: És lásd mi lett velük: vereséget szenvedtek, megölték őket.

David Graeber szerint ilyen vitákat egy anarchista nem nyerhet meg (Mondjuk egy anarchistának nem is célja bárkit is meggyőzni. De hát akkor miért íródott a könyv? - gonoszkodhatnánk), amíg át nem értelmezünk néhány vonatkozó alapfogalmat, mint például: állam, demokrácia, anarchizmus. Az átértelmezéshez pedig az antropológia és az etnográfia jelentheti a kulcsot. Elsősorban azért, mert az etnográfusoknak minden más tudomány képviselőihez képest több tudásuk van létező társadalmi alternatívákról, hiszen a nyugati világtól teljesen idegen népek között élnek, az ő világukat tanulmányozzák. A szerző két évet töltött Madagaszkáron, ottani tapasztalatait és az antropológia egyéb eredményeit pedig egy anarchista pamfletté gyúrta össze.

A könyv néhány központi gondolata:
- Az anarchizmus soha nem nyerhet az állammal szemben, ezért a terrorizmus és a fegyveres ellenállás helyett a legerősebb anarchista fegyver a „megszökés” az államtól. Minél több hivatalos szerv befolyása és látóköre alól kivonjuk magunkat és minél inkább törekszünk szűkebb közösségünk önigazgatására, annál nagyobb anarchisták vagyunk. Világszerte számos sikeres példája van az önigazgató közösségeknek, ezért nem kell „szégyellni” ezt a „politikai” hozzáállást. A szerző kedvelt példái a különböző afrikai és ázsiai népek mellett a zapatisták vagy az argentin önigazgató városok.
- Az akadémikusok és a nyugati demokraták azzal érvelnek, hogy a primitív népek életében a vérségi és családi kötelékek túl nagy szerepet játszanak, ami nem demokratikus; közösségük nem lehet példa. Graeber szerint viszont a nyugati demokráciák szintén nem demokratikusak – gender, faj, osztály, családi kötelékek szerint olykor leküzdhetetlen törésvonalak szövik át és ezek a vonalak döntik el, kié lesz a hatalom. A Nyugat vs. keleti, afrikai stb. primitív népek ellentétét tehát meg kell haladni, mert az nem igaz, hogy az ókori athéniak előtt nem volt sehol „demokrácia” a világon.
- Állam nélkül is léteznek működőképes társadalmak, sőt pl. a középkorban az államnak nevezett képződmények valójában nem is államok voltak, ezért téves a történelmet államtörténetként felfogni.
- Lehet, hogy a könyv nagyobb részben utópia, de az utópiák segítenek elképzelni egy jobb világot és egyébként is, minden megvalósult berendezkedés kezdetben csak egy vízió volt. És persze maga az állam és szuverenitása sem több, mint utópia, tekintve, hogy sehol nem sikerült még teljesen egybeolvadnia a Vezérnek az általa felügyelt valamennyi lakossal és területtel, azaz tényleges, közvetlen hatalommal egy király, miniszterelnök, netán államapparátus sem rendelkezik „népe”’ felett.

Mindez rendkívül érdekes eszmefuttatás és az anarchizmus fogalmának összetettségére irányítja a figyelmet. De azért a szerző sem tud megmaradni ennyiben; síkra száll a munkaórák csökkentése mellett és bizonyos foglalkozások, pl. a PR és a marketing teljes eltörléséért. Itt már néhol túlzásokat is éreztem, de összességében öt csillagnál nem kevesebb ez a könyv, mert rég olvastam olyan politikai pamfletet, amely ennyire bátran mer „outside the box” gondolkozni.

[Paulla Ferreira Pinto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recomendável para desfazer mitos, preconceitos, ideias feitas enviesadas e para ampliar as perspectivas e possibilidades ao alcance de todos. Se são caminhos fáceis, os propostos? Claro que não. Mas alguma vez as coisas fáceis revelaram-se transformadoras do que quer que seja?

Por fim, “o caminho faz-se caminhando” é um adágio que assume todo um novo significado para qualquer aprendiz de anarquista ou iniciado no estudo da anarquia.

[Sharlyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this book in 2006 or 2007, when I was still new to anarchism. I think I read it twice back-to-back because I loved it so much and because it's such an accessible and concise introduction. Having just read it again and now being much more familiar with many of the principles and arguments Graeber is discussing, I still love it and highly recommend it! It's still a great intro, but it's also a terrific little perk: something to stoke one's optimism after having it beaten down by the lack of imagination around you, the toughness of the everyday work, or just one's own cynicism. Aside from being sort of cutely humorous on its own and super confident, the stories that Graeber shares of stateless of anarchistic communities are such excellent reminders of what inadequate histories we in the U.S. have access to--and how that limits our imagination of what is possible. Another world IS possible, and in fact, has existed in many places and times, whether "we" knew about it, or whether we defined it out of relevance with our Eurocentric ideas of civilization and democracy.

[Laszlo · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this short, 100 page book, that's worth its weight in gold tenfold, Graeber both calls out the field of social sciences, specifically anthropology, to come out of its academic ivory tower, break down the walls imposed by entrenched ideas of the nation-state and capitalist realism and use its large potential to present alternatives for how we can conceive our social, economic and political lives.

Graeber articulates and expands on the concept of counterpower, which has been embraced by other radical thinkers such as autonomists or the Communalism of Murray Bookchin and that of redefining the way we perceive the idea of revolutions together with our conceptualization of the realities that we inhabit vs our abstractions such as notions like the state. Starting from these positions, succintly, that instead of abolishing or gaining power, it is more feaseable, realistic and efficient to create parallel structures that both reject the current norm, create new avenues of thought and organization and protect from devolution to authoritarianism. Furthermore, that revolutions or change does not happen as a catastrophic change, like the discovery of electricity or some radical loop from one stage to the other, but rather it is a continuum of actions that reject and confront the status quo, ranging from the individual to the collective and that span various domains.

In articulating this, Graeber also attacks with great precision the dichotomic thinking of Western academics of the social sciences and not only, to see Europe as a special place, where courtesy of the right blend of religious, cultural, political and economic factors, it became the center for colonial expansion while the rest of the world were just poor underdeveloped nations ready to be gobbled up by this special juggernaut. Rather it's chance and circumstance that the New World and its stone age civilizations were defeated militarily and biologically and with the hoarded wealth Europe could put itself on the course of global domination and genocide. As well as the fact that all of humanity is on the same continuum, we are all humans in fullest sense, indifferent as to our technological or otherwise development over time, a fact that most academics forget.

Graeber outlines a series of approaches anthropologists could take to further research and understanding into how alternatives could be found. Although some of them are short, they are both interesting (i.e researching power/ignorance relationship or a theory of political happiness)to expand upon and consult and an invitation to all those interested to start digging for the new world that we need to survive and prosper and that, in light of our potentialities and avenues unexplored, deserve to have. A final imperative, hangs over us, as articulated by the Situationists and expanded upon by Bookchin ''do the impossible or face the unthinkable''.

[Asa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Graeber goes into several subjects, but of particular interest may be the debate between consensus democracy and compulsion democracy. Marxists like to argue that consensus democracy simply wears people down until they are 'browbeaten into agreement' and is therefore just as bad. David here thinks that is a stretch. And I tend to agree.

He also admirably makes quite clear the parody of intellectual 'debate' in academic circles.

Another thing about the book I particulary liked was the strong critiques of Zerzan primitivism (because the elimination of 90% of the human population is the only way primitivism could work and an anarchist should have moral qualms about that...).

Some may quibble with the anti-state feel here, but this is anarchist anti-state fare.

A deserved classic with anarchists (although certainly not with the academic elite) and free online.

[Elsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The West might have introduced some new possibilities, but it hasn’t canceled any of the old ones out."

Graeber makes you rethink everything and wonder why you never thought about it like this before. I cannot spell out to you all the claims he makes, but I can tell you they were mind-bending. What I will take from this is the lesson I've been seeing all around me lately. Often the most revolutionary act you can perform is to set up new ways of living and ignore the state rather than confront it directly. At the same time, he doesn't rule out direct action as long as it is based on ways of organising revolutionary in themselves.
Starting a pre-master anthropology next year, this book has shown me what an anarchist anthropology could look like and what problems I might run into if I would try to practice it. I know this cannot be the studies I've signed up for, but if it is even somewhat like this I couldn't be more happy with my choice. I cannot wait to read more like this, write some controversial essays and confront my professors.

[Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

Graeber hat mich, wenn er über "Traditionen" sagt, sie seien Erfindungen wie "Volk", "Nation", "Staat" oder "Identität" und Religionen: "In gewissem Maße sind Traditionen genau das: der kontinuierliche Prozess ihrer eigenen Erfindung." (180) Das wusste ich, aber man muss es auch auf die eigene Traditions- und Identitätskonstruktion anwenden können, meint, mit diesem Buch ist mir klar geworden, dass moderner Anarchismus dem Marxismus, dessen fruchtbare Kritik er gleichwohl ist, als politische Theorie und Utopie überlegen ist. Ich werde das nicht vergessen und von nun an davon Abstand nehmen, mich als "Marxisten" zu bezeichnen, was der Hochachtung für Karl Marx allerdings keinen Abbruch tun wird.

Damit ist schon klar, dass Graeber einen überzeugenden Text vorgelegt hat, der - gerade weil er vor den umfangreichen Ausarbeitungen geschrieben ist - in skizzenhafter Zuspitzung die Thesen präsentiert, die in den folgenden breit angelegten Erörterungen leicht untergehen. Das Plädoyer für die Anthropologie ergibt sich dabei aus der Erkenntnis, dass Philosophie und Geschichtsschreibung in der Buch- Tradition stehen und daher kaum sehen können, was sich jenseits schriftlicher Quellen vollzogen hat und vollzieht. Allein die Anthropologie vermag zu erfassen, was in welcher Weltgegend und in welcher Zeit strukturell Vergleichbares passiert. Am Beispiel des Demokratie- Begriffs kann so gezeigt werden, wie die Einengung auf den antiken "Ursprung" zur begrifflichen und sachlichen Verwirrung insofern führt, als ALLE anderen Formen von gleichberechtigter Konsensfindung, die zu allen Zeiten und bei allen Völkern verbreitet waren und sind, zugunsten des Abstimmungsverfahrens und der so begründeten (Allein-) Herrschaftsform eines Führers oder einer Führungselite aus dem Bewusstsein verdrängt wurden. Nicht nur, dass "unsere" Form von Demokratie einer Militärdemokratie (Abstimmung waffentragender Männer in Zeiten, in denen schnell gehandelt werden musste) entstammt und folgerichtig schon bei den Römern mit der Regierungsform der Republik verbunden wurde, womit "Volks(!)herrschaft" obsolet war und durch die Herrschaft Auserwählter ersetzt wurde, ist interessant, präzise erfasst wird auch der Umstand, dass Abstimmungsergebnisse notwendig zu Spaltungen führen und damit Herrschaft als Machtausübung mindestens einer Mehrheit über die Minderheit, bald aber auch der Minderheit über die (zum Schweigen gebrachte) Mehrheit begründet. Damit stellt "Demokratie" im Sinne bisheriger politischer Theorien eben nicht her, was herzustellen sie vorgibt: An die Stelle von Konsens und Gemeinschaft tritt der Interessenkonflikt, der bei zunehmender Differenzierung des Demos zur "Gesellschaft" führt, deren innere Zerrissenheit bald den "Mann mit dem großen Knüppel" (=Polizei, Militär) erfordert, womit "Demokratie" endgültig als Machtform enttarnt und ihres ursprünglich doch immer noch mitschwingenden Sinns sich entledigt hat. Was übrig bleibt, ist Propaganda, die man dennoch einsetzen kann, wenn man die Konsens- Findung als Idee der macht- und herrschaftsfreien Zustimmung (bei Möglichkeit, sich zu entziehen) betont und darauf besteht. Graebers Beispiel sind u.a. die Zapatistas in Mexiko, die zeigen, welchen Beitrag indigene Gemeinschaften im politischen Sinne zu leisten in der Lage sind und immer auch geleistet haben.

Daneben gibt es eine für mich spannende Diskussion verschiedener Thesen zur "Staatlichkeit", nach denen z.B. Athen, das keinerlei Verwaltung hatte, der Status "Staat" abzusprechen wäre. Aber selbst dort, wo Gebiete "durchherrscht" wurden, endete die Gewalt des Staates in dem Moment, wo sich ihre Träger entfernten. Die sich selbst überlassenen Dörfer regelten dann auch Fragen der Steuer auf traditionellem, was meint, meist auf konsensualem und die Leistungsfähigkeit Einzelner berücksichtigenden Art und Weise. Davon ist moderner Anarchismus inspiriert, wenn Graeber sagt, es gehe eben nicht darum, die Macht zu erobern oder den Konflikt mit dem herrschenden Staat und seinen Eliten zu suchen, sondern sich zu entziehen, die Freiräume jenseits von Herrschaft und Macht systematisch zu vergrößern. (Als "Steuerflucht" können wir das ja schon ganz gut! ;-) ) Man sieht das Vorbild Ghandis und Mandelas und ahnt, dass hier nicht- westliche Vorstellungen konstitutiv sind.

Warum hat es nun aber "den Westen" nicht gegeben? Graeber argumentiert einsichtig gegen das überkommene (marxistische) Revolutionsmodell, das von der neolithischen bis zur technologischen Revolution "Geschichte" aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven in Phasen gliedert und von dort aus bestimmen kann, wer bis dahin mitgekommen sei und ab wann ein Territorium, ein Kontinent oder eine Gemeinschaft an dem Prozess nicht mehr teilgenommen habe. Die derart konstruierte Fortschrittsgeschichte führt dann zur Begründung der technologischen und ideellen Überlegenheit der nordatlantischen Zivilisation gegenüber allen anderen Zivilisationen. Begründet wird das meist mit individualistischen Tendenzen der christlich- jüdischen Tradition, die sich auf die griechisch- römische Antike berufen konnte, was aber schon deshalb falsch ist, weil der Islam dieselben Wurzeln hat und intensiver als das frühe Christentum an die Griechen anschloss, dennoch aber nicht zum "Westen" gezählt wird. In einem antikolonialistischen Schwenk, der die Raubgemeinschaft "West-Europa" als eben eine solche charakterisiert und das als Voraussetzung für den westlichen "modernen" Kapitalismus ("Kapitalbildung" als Akkumulation fremder Arbeitskraft - Sklaven - oder mithilfe von Raubgütern - lateinamerikanisches Silber und Gold etc.) definiert, erscheint die Durchsetzung unserer universalistischen "Werte" umstandslos als das, was sie ist: "Menschenrechtsterrorismus"! Graeber kann zeigen, dass einer der ersten Aufrufe zum Dshihad von einem indischen muslimischen Gelehrten stammt, der seinen nicht- muslimischen Herrscher zum Krieg gegen die Portugiesen auffordert, weil diese alle Werte der Freundlichkeit, Menschlichkeit und religiösen Toleranz aufs Gröbste missachteten. (Wenigstens diese Stelle sollte man abschreiben und unseren "Westliche- Wertegemeinschafts-Moral- Aposteln" täglich auf den Frühstückstisch legen.)

Fazit: Wähler/innen der AfD sollten sich lieber mit Anarchismus beschäftigen, ehe sie sich einer autoritären Machtform ausliefern, die das nur potenzieren würde, was sie heute zu Recht ablehnen. Linke sowieso. Identitätspolitik hat jedenfalls keine Zukunft und staatlich "gelenkte" Reformen werden die Grundprobleme auf dem Weg zu einem herrschaftsfreien Leben nicht lösen. In den Teilen, in denen Graebers Thesen noch unausgegoren erscheinen, beispielsweise wird das globale Problem der Unterordnung von Frauen selbst da, wo sie mitbestimmen können, angesprochen und benannt, aber nicht gelöst, regt das Buch an zum Weiterdenken und zur Diskussion. Was mehr kann man von einem solch politisch- wissenschaftstheoretischen Traktat erwarten? Man sollte es lesen. Unbedingte Empfehlung.

[Noelia F.R · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me ha gustado mucho el hilo conductor de su argumentación. Su visión de las sociedades "modernas" desde la óptica antropológica me parece muy acertada, ya que estas siguen basándose en el matrimonio, la herencia y las relaciones de género; en otras palabras: en los sistemas de parentesco. A partir de aquí, queda patente la falta de movilidad social dentro de las sociedades consideradas modernas y/o "civilizadas". Él expone que se está hablando de algo parecido a los sistemas de clanes, pero a escala global.
Cuando los escépticos piden referencias de sociedades sin estado, Graeber dice que en este debate es imposible ganas porque "cuando el escéptico habla de sociedad se refiere a Estado o incluso a Estado-Nación (p. 65). Al menos se puede entrever el obvio racismo, eurocentrismo y etnocentrismo, además del error que supone creer que las sociedades consideradas primitivas no son simples, porque no lo son en absoluto.
Sobre el trabajo asalariado y su crítica a este, resulta interesante su idea de un consenso para el reparto equitativo, y lo presenta con datos, como que, por ejemplo, el trabajo no asalariado no terminaría, y un ejemplo es el castigo a los presos quitándoles su derecho al trabajo. La idea de contribuir y hacer algo supera casi siempre al aburrimiento. Otro punto es que en ese reparto equitativo de los trabajos más sucios, en cuanto le tocase a científicos e ingenieros, estos crearían robots mineros o cocinas que se autolimpian, lo cual me agrada, porque en este sentido reconozco que mantengo una opinión más cerca de la tecnofilia que de la tecnofobia, sobre todo si supone librar al individuo de un trabajo duro y desagradable.
Es interesante, también, su explicación de una verdadera democracia directa, y la visión histórica que ha tenido a lo largo de los siglos el concepto de democracia.
Con respecto a las tácticas, me ha llamado la atención esta cita, que considero muy acertada: "hay momentos en que alzar la bandera rojinegra y hacer declaraciones desafiantes es la mayor estupidez que uno puede cometer. A veces, lo mejor es simular que nada ha cambiado, permitir que los representantes estatales mantengan su dignidad, incluso presentarse en sus despachos, rellenar sus formularios, y a partir de ese momento, ignorarlos por completo" (Graeber, 2019: 97). No solo se trata de una táctica, sino de algo que expone con ejemplos que han ocurrido ya numerosas veces.
Teniendo en cuenta que los antropólogos son los científicos sociales que han conocido sociedades sin estado, sí, hace falta una antropología anarquista.

Una lástima su fallecimiento. Con ganas de leer su libro titulado Trabajos de mierda.

[K · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit small and incoherent and reminded me of Bakunin's writings. The word ''fragments'' on the title is of course self evident of the book's structure.

David Graeber is an anthropologist and also an anarchist. He believes that anthropologists possess the tools and theories that could help shape an anarchistic vision of the future. He doesn't paint this future in any significant detail though, but he does give some startings points -which aren't new in any way.

As I've said, it's largely incoherent with no sense of flow so the author jumps from one point to the next leaving you with a sense of confusion. Firstly, he provides some basic notions of anarchist thought, then talks about ideas of various anthropologists, then about Madagascar's tribes, then about contemporary society and so on and so forth. To be fair though, his conclusions do shape things up a little.

I'm very sympathetic towards anarchist ideals and I find David Graeber a very smart and engaging person. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this book. The title is honest, it's too small to judge it for lacking any concrete new theory and it seems that it wants to be superficial. Perhaps somebody who hasn't read much about these things can find it a good beginner's read but this isn't the case for me.

Steve Keen -the australian guru-economist - has recommended his book on debt. I'll try that one in the future.

[Greta Rase · Rating 5 out of 5]

Siendo honesta lo que me metió en la conversación política fue el feminismo. Siendo el feminismo un movimiento político y (mas bien) un plural, me percaté de que toda la organización se fragmentaba no solo en los orígenes de la opresión sino en los objetivos de cada uno de los feminismos. Este libro (muy breve) presenta una serie de reflexiones alrededor del Anarquismo y una propuesta, no solo para obtener un mejor ¿corpus? teórico con base en la antropología y el cuestionamiento de la falta de interés de lo académico en ello, sino también para invitar al lector a una especie de certeza de que otro mundo es posible. Hay varias cosas que me hicieron replantearme muchas otras; especialmente su explicación sobre como nuestros sistemas ‘democráticos’ con los votos fallan en su propósito de decisiones conjuntas. Además (aunque ya habia pensado en esto desde otras perspectivas políticas) David nos habla sobre como existen sociedades anarquistas (o grupos que presentan estas características) y como esencialmente no se parecen a nuestra idea (casi siempre racista) de una sociedad ‘civilizada’, porque esencialmente debe cambiar de forma paulatina, pero radical. Creo que como algo introductorio, esta genial. Me hizo replantearme muchas cosas y la mención a los Zapatistas me sorprendió (simplemente porque siento que a veces no se le da la atención mediática que otros temas tienen). Se los recomiendo <3

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

“El capitalismo moderno es en realidad una versión renovada de la esclavitud. Ya no es necesario un grupo de personas que se dedique a vender o alquilar a otros seres humanos, nos vendemos nosotros mismos. Pero en definitiva no existe una gran diferencia”.

[Read me two times · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saggio superinteressante.

[Pikobouh]

J'ai rien compris. 🫠🫠🫠

[Iman · Rating 5 out of 5]

<333333333

[foxfire · Rating 2 out of 5]

At the beginning, Graeber had some interesting points and lines to draw with anthropology, anarchy and the academy. It seems that while operating within the confines of the ivory tower, he understands the limits of anthropology and academia. His background in anarchy however seems to stick out as well, seeing as he did his time in the anti-globalization era it seems fitting that he is attached to strictly non-violent symbolic forms of protest, which taints his practice of anthropology and effectively removing large parts of anarchist history from this text.

All the same, Graeber eventually falls into the same trappings of anthropologists and academic radicals in this text. Consistently Graeber is looking for ways to legitimize egalitarian societies with political language (why must they be legitimized in the first place?) so they may be models to look towards when building "counter-power."

Graeber also passively asserts that the way to build a "revolution" is to slowly and peacefully build radical institutions that create some sort of autonomy from the government, eventually enough that the government will just become irrelevant and disappear. While there can be some weight to the importance of building and maintaining radical infrastructure in times where there is no upswing of radical activity, the arguments for and against "waiting for the government to just wither away" have been played out so many times and I was just shocked that Graeber still clings to this idea that has been living in the dustbin of history.

In short, David Graeber is not the anarchists' friend.

[Raquel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Breve aunque interesante introducción a una posible antropología anarquista.
He encontrado muy relevantes algunos puntos, como la comparación con el éxito académico del marxismo, la revisión en óptica anarquista de teóricos fundacionales de la antropología como Mauss o Radcliffe-Brown, la crítica al concepto de Modernidad y del carácter de lo "moderno" y la reflexión en torno a las sociedades contra el Estado ya conceptualizadas por Clastres.
Sin embargo, me habría gustado que todos estos temas se desarrollasen en mayor profundidad. Las propuestas parecían todas muy incipientes y la extrema síntesis de algunos pasajes hacía que, al menos para mí, se diesen por hecho cosas o la expresión resultara incluso algo "panfletaria".
En todo caso, es un librillo que se puede leer en media tarde, por lo que me parece de lectura muy recomendada para cualquier interesado/a en anarquismo o antropología social (¡y más para quienes les interesen ambas!).

[Tinea · Rating 3 out of 5]

An anarchist and academic challenges other anarchic academics to bring it harder in the academy. I love Graeber's approach to theory: approachable, comprehensible, practical, and pure. Pure, not as in uncomplicated, but pure as in grounded in a simple opposition to oppression and embrace of all people as people. Short enough to read yourself. The ending was particularly strong and nice.

Full text available here.
Discussion from the (A) Book Club on Goodreads here.

[read it in Ethiopia]

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

such an enjoyable read, how can you say no? graeber playfully sets an intellectual table with anarchism, anthropology, Western colonialism, the "anti-globalization" movement, democracy, primitivists, and a bunch of other serious, difficult topics, and proceeds to have a feast of joyous revelry in the limitless potential of human freedom outside of such oppressive institutions as the State and capitalism. 105 pages.

[Frederik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Help, I'm an anarchist now.

[Ashley Y · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars.

Quotes/ideas I liked:

- “Greatness was a pathology; ‘great men’ were essentially destroyers” (14).

- In Amazonian and indigenous societies, chief status was disincentivized… Ashley’s thought: what would this look like in America? (22).

- Anarchy focuses on gift economies NOT barter economies.

- “‘Democracy’ itself… literally means the ‘force’ or even the ‘violence’ of the people” (91).

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Otra maravilla de libro. Ahora tengo más ganas de ser antropóloga (anarquista, claro).