I've been thinking a lot about the way leftists and anarchists, both, have taken positions on the outside, ever since I noticed that Zizek when to Zucotti and spoke of 'us' and 'we'. He knows how to appeal to an audience who'll butter his bread! This author ties it all together, including an early apprehension that much of the grumpiness is that of a lover who'd been spurned too many times:
"Love and Shame are not necessarily the most prevalent affects on the left regarding the Occupy movement, but they do remind us of something more fundamental about the left in this moment. The left is tender, timid, scared and full of trepidation and self-doubt, almost too sensitive to face the world. The last 30 years have felt like one beating after another. For those who became activists in this period it was only a matter of time before they faced a devastating failure. Lives on the left have felt misshapen and tenuous, warped by coping mechanisms. Those who want to keep their pride become cynical and resentful and scoff at the failure of any movement to develop a properly sophisticated analysis. Those who want to keep their optimism scale back their expectations so that remaining human is itself the highest form of resistance. Those who want to keep their grand vision develop the glazed over eyes and disjointed reason of a cult follower."
http://www.hypocritereader.com/10/awk-upy
<> It might be helpful to go back to Carrol's original statement and its <> parenthetical qualification, which perhaps shouldn't have been <> bracketed: "to reach those of the 75% (who can be reached)."
Put that way, it makes sense. But yet another dispute where questioners offer nothing of positive content and then everyone answers questions from questioners who weren't going to listen ... no thanks.