It should be noted that the reason Scott is so palatable for the hegemony is that he wasn't an anarchist, so "anarchish" is probably an apt description. Freedom News, for example, proclaimed that Scott "may not have identified publicly as an Anarchist but he certainly was an anarchist" and then evidenced this by stating that "in Two Cheers for Anarchism he employs what he calls an “anarchist squint”" which, to me, is evidence that he wasn't an anarchist and didn't use the anarchist theoretical framework as anarchists do. For Scott, it was to applied in addition to another framework because it could illuminate failings of the system, but it shouldn't be your natural lens. It's called Two Cheers and not Three Cheers for a reason. Then, of course, they talk about his reporting for the CIA.
Freedom's Article: https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/07/25/james-c-scott-1936-2024/
I remember reading this with a Marxist group. We had relative consensus that we loved the ideas, especially on primitive accumulation, but found the historical elements to be weak. I think a lot of critics and reviewers have picked up on the same thing, saying that Federici's history was totally off. Would be a much stronger book without these elements, I think.
Regardless, it's necessary reading. Her idea of primitive accumulation is beautiful.