I enjoyed Debt for its anthro study of money, and traditionally anarchists have always been utopian to MLs in various ways.

Was just commenting on my own campus experience (I was a student/worker on campus for 12 years) that didn't seem to vibe with the article writer's experience, but maybe things have changed.

Graeber's rejection of the concept of the state undermines one of the basic assumptions of anarchist thought, which is anti-statism. As the reviewer says,

But this “simplistic” conception of the state is also the conception that fuels or articulates the anarchist critique of the state, from William Godwin to Mikhail Bakunin to Emma Goldman [...] In late Graeber, this looks simplistic and nonempirical. “The state” is a concept that falls apart under analysis and should be abandoned. Of course, that makes anti-statism just as senseless, for what is an anti-statist fighting against, really?

Same logic applies to his rejection of egalitarianism, which is also an important aspect of anarchist thought. I think late Graeber would dismiss anarchism as based on the same flawed Enlightenment assumptions that he spends debunking in The Dawn of Everything.

I think Graeber remained a radical throughout his life, but not an anarchist in his later works. Unless you're using a more expansive definition of anarchism?

I'm not exactly an expert on Graeber despite having once been a pretty big fan of his work, but I don't really find myself disagreeing with much this author says. I think there was a bit of a liberal drift in his later works.