“Immaterial labor, we are told, is labor that produces information and culture. In other words it is “immaterial” not because the labor itself is immaterial (how could it be?) but because it produces immaterial things.”

He then goes on to critique this analysis, and even ends up condemning “generations of marxists”. But Graeber creates a straw man here. Hardt & Negri are indeed talking about immaterial *labor*. This includes, for example, affective labor, where, say, an airline steward is required to produce a cheerful disposition.

Graeber’s own thinking and criticism appears to have stagnated. His refusal or inability to wrestle with new ideas (new to him at least) is demonstrated by his parenthetical remark concerning immaterial labor: “(how could it be?)”. Here, Graeber shows his unwillingness or inability to consider something new that might challenge his idiosyncratic anthropological anarchism.

Like most activists who call themselves anarchists, his intellectual curiosity is stunted by a compulsion to defend what is more of an identity (an identity based on a fundamentalist, or essentialist, faith) than an analytical framework. When I encounter this among young anarchist activists, it frustrates me, but I presume they might outgrow it and become open-minded critical thinkers. When I encounter this in a middle-aged academically-trained activist, I can only react with sadness.