> I certainly think North American anarchists make a lot
> of mistakes (I don't self-identify as one), but frankly...
> when I see Marxist partisans criticize anarchists for a
> total lack of Strategee (clearly imagining themselves
> peering importantly down a geopolitical chessboard) and
> then they stubbornly keep making simple blunders like
> this... they're clearly missing a few pieces in their box of
> strategies. I think when we lose a little humility, the
> "Dunning-Krueger effect" kicks into action.
I am not sure I understand you. But, for the record, since what I wrote may have been too obscure:
I am not criticizing anarchism, in general, or David Graeber, in particular, for "lack of strategy." And I'm not "peering importantly down a geopolitical chessboard," whatever that may mean. I am painfully aware of my personal failings as I am of the enormity of the problems we face. I'm just trying to make a frank argument about issues that matter to me. I view myself as part of this Occupy eruption, and I want us to win. That's why I got interested in David Graeber's response to Chris Hedges.
I already said what I think of Graeber's response to Hedges. I criticized the text for very specific reasons, which I listed repeatedly. I admit that the analogies I used didn't help me, polemically. They distracted the readers from the points I was making. It was a failure of communication form on my part. But there's more to an argument that the figures of speech chosen to state it. There's something called *content*, which -- as imperfectly conveyed as it may have been -- could be discerned from what I wrote.
I still wonder what you and others have to say about that argument itself.