I’m perplexed by this article’s argument, which seems to be that Graeber is somehow betraying “anarchism” by theorizing the state as ill-defined or non-monolithic, or questioning the concept of “inequality”. All of these arguments seem totally compatible with anarchism, especially the type of modernism-questioning anarchism that would stem from anthropology. To me it feels like the author is coming from an overly rigid or subcultural definition of the term that takes any straying outside its bounds as indication of closet liberal behavior or a radical shift in thought. While it’s possible that his late works were cryptically hinting at a new angle, the inconsistencies in his writing and behavior are also adequately explained by Graeber being merely human and not the ideal paragon of anarchist ideology.