James C. Scott is a respected scholar in the field. His anarchist perspective, of course, has an impact on the orientation of his work, but so does any perspective, even the ones that aren't clearly stated. I think his clarity about his orientation makes for an honest methodology, and it also gives you an angle of attack if you want to criticize his work. As for the consensus, he wouldn't be a "respected scholar" if he didn't pay proper attention to his colleagues' work. History relies on facts, and you can count on Scott for that. Thus said, facts alone don't make History, and interpretations and narratives always have an angle. In that case, you can oppose the liberal vision of early city-states as a social contract between individuals VS the corruptive nature of power in Scott's anarchist perspective. Choosing between the two readings is a matter of arguments, not facts, and I encourage you to think critically about both of them.