We are self-consciously *not* laboring to prevent non-anarchists from adopting Graeber's anarchist premises. For us, that would create is a false form of clarity. Feel free to set forth another argument. But that is not ours.

No. What we're up to is much more nuanced. We are actually showing how Graeber's alleged anarchism shares a lot with liberalism & Marxism, not to mention the influences of Nietzsche & post-structuralism. None of these movements are the same; yet they heterogeneously share some very deep premises.

Thanks for clarifying. So, go ahead: tell us what mentioning anarchism brings to the table. Tell us what new insights this opens up.

To name just two: 1) Attributing all of Graeber's limits to anarchism risks reducing the specificity of his claims to a broader political tradition that is heterogenous & contested. 2) Graeber's influence goes well beyond the confines of anarchism, informing many different approaches on the left.

Then please, tell us: What still needs to be said that is missed by not overtly labelling Graeber an anarchist & critiquing his work primarily for his anarchist commitments?

Meanwhile, I'd say that the dangers of framing the critique primarily in terms of anarchism are many. 1/2