You have a lot more thought on it then I do. I haven't even tried to explain it to myself.
I've been saying for a long time that when the world _does_ explode again, it will completely surprise us. It wasn't predictable. I did suggest that while it would be quiteunlike the '60s, it would be _more_ like the '60s than like the '30s or the 1870s. I've also said that one cannot theorize a movement in advance; that theory comes from action, not action from theory. And just the other day I remarked that if one took the present as history seriously, then the present was, in itself, meaningless. That it's meaning emerged from a backward inspection of it. (Was this what Hegel meant when he said the Owl of Athena flies only at dusk?) The meaning is, in obscure fashion, beginning to take shape in the responses to it all over the nation and apparently in Europe as well. What we do is participate in those responses, mobilize around them, debate within those responses over what it is we are doing and what it is we have done and what we should do nnext. (We also prepare ourselves for the inevitable pauses, sometimes lengthy ones, in which everyone will start to say, well, that's over and we can relax.)
There's certainly a lot of fluff involved, but we don't have a crystal ball to tell us yet which is the fluff and which is the arrow to the future. Eventually we need to theorize at a higher level what we're doing -- but we can't do it yet.
Carrol