The easiest way to explain anarchism is to say that it is a political movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free society - that is, one where humans only enter those kinds of relations with one another that would not have to be enforced by the constant threat of violence. History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Anarchists wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. Anarchism envisions a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants.I would never have thought about it that way, I perhaps have thought that anarchism was a "technique" of sorts to bring about a political change, not necessarily already possessing a singular specific political system as an outcome.
I believe MMT shows how "modern" free-floating, non-convertible state currency systems rely on the coercive force of taxes to ultimately impart value on the currency, perhaps violating Graeber's definition of a "free society" here: "...that would not have to be enforced by the constant threat of violence...... prisons..."
I would like to see how Graeber would address this fact with a view towards what he believes is the OWS anarchists desire for a "free society" with no human relations that rely on a constant threat of prison.
Is the fact that "modern" monetary systems are ultimately very authoritarian in nature, as the value of the currency is imparted ultimately by the threat of incarceration due to non-payment of taxes, incompatible with the OWS movement?