The author goes on to critique the term, anti-capitalist, but doesn't question the idea that a nascent social movement, in a country like the u.s., is only worth active participation only if its members are somehow fully formed freedom fighters against capitalism, ready to dispose of a capitalist economy, here and now, end of fucking history.
The author then dumps a lot of verbiage to example why Platy-symps and fellow travelers should sit in a corner contemplating the lint in their navels, upholding it for inspection: "oooo. Pink lint! I wonder how my belly button made pink lint? Wow. So awesome contrasted with the gray. It really pops. Oh, wow. We could make Art with it."
'At a recent panel discussion hosted by the Platypus Society at Harvard University, the moderator asked the participants whether Occupy Boston and related Occupations were 'anticapitalist.' The panelists had all been participants in Occupy Boston before Mayor Menino ordered the clearing out of Dewey Square. This question initially sounded like the kind of question hopeful radicals always ask about some incipient form of social protest. The implicit question seemed to be something like 'is it the revolution in waiting, or should we not bother?' Each of the four panelists handled the question in their own way it is "objectively anticapitalist, even if subjectively reformist," "not yet," "some are anticapitalist and some aren't," "Occupy isn't one thing." '
At 10:01 AM 2/9/2012, shag carpet bomb wrote:
anyway, that's what I ended up calling the 'subject of
>history' problem and an identitarian position that the subject of
>history must emerge, nearly fully formed in its knowledge of the Truth