If he were interested in an engaged fallibilistic pluralism (immanent critique) of the "crew" then, as a political theorist, I'm sure he would have been happy to discuss, say, feminist critiques from a leftist anarch-feminist perspective to indicate an anarchist strain of thought with a view of the relationship between the state/market/civil society more in sync with his own. there are more perspectives. perhaps he might have helped to strengthen Lennard's understanding of and use of Foucault, who certainly did a great deal to advance our understanding of the way control operates via civil society.
hey! that would be a really nifty thing to do for the people who oppose police but want civil society to do the job in the movement by policing each other's behavior during protests! Don't use police, just use the nifty "civil society" approach! woot!
anyway, when someone lumps lump everyone into one label, never quote anyone, and then ignore a bunch of existing theory, sure. it's a blog. he's busy.just can't be helped.
OTOH, when someone writes "crew" they are usually just speaking to their supporters and are uninterested in actual engagement with the ideas of one's intellectual opponent. Which is fine. It's agit-prop designed to label one side as "bad" and the other side 'good". But then, as Eric said, make yourself look good by saying, "hey, i don't think their ideas are worth taking seriously, but I'm such a great guy for thinking what happened toher as an individual is shitty."
Again, nice bit of agit-prop but hardly the approach one takes with people who you really think are on your side.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)