It's possible -- I'm not a regular reader of his blog, and thus might be missing stylistic cues, or other occluded methods of admitting a failing. The only thing I read him admit to is that he's less sure of himself than before. Likewise, "Right now I think conflict theory is probably a less helpful way of viewing the world in general than mistake theory" doesn't quite express the idea that "these two theories actually address vastly differing questions that I and the rest of 'respectable' society have been conditioned to conflate". (edit) To clarify: how to obtain power (conflict theory) vs how to effectively wield power (mistake theory)
Yeah, that's a reasonable criticism. I read your first comment as suggesting he didn't recognise conflict theory as existing.
My instinct is also to characterise the theories in a similar way. I'd describe it as how things ought to be (mistake theory) vs how to achieve that (conflict theory), but I guess that's kind of the same thing you're saying.
However, I'm not sure you can entirely separate these theories though. A mistake can be creating a society which encourages power imbalances, and a consequence of power imbalances can be societies that are less able to notice certain mistakes.
Re: your last paragraph, it seems to me that the question of "who wields power" will always have material priority -- one of the benefits of power is deciding what is and isn't a "mistake". Look at climate change -- no amount of scientific consensus or popular belief-that-it-is-a-mistake has succeeded in constraining those people whose activities are driving it (I'm speaking not just of DJT's recent escapades in pulling the US from the Paris deal, but the insufficiency of Paris itself). This is power. No amount of problem-identifying/solving has (or will) convince the captains of industry that maintaining their current economic growth targets is less preferable than making vast swaths of the earth less hospitable to life.
