>
> That was my point when I posted the joke, to characterise those standing
on the peripheries opining on why OWS will fail, has failed, or is bound to
fail (because OWS does not see things the way the opinionator does, or OWS
does not prescribe to the grand theory the opinionator holds, etc). That
their grand theory is a pseudo-science is likely true but I will avoid, in
this post, the philosophy of science issues that arise.
But who are these people standing on the sidelines? More often than not this is a rhetorical strategy in which anyone who tries to raise an unwelcome critical point can be treated as a theorist on the periphery. As if criticism - which is in any case almost always about part of the movement, not the movement as a whole - can only come from a grand theory. It's ridiculous to see e-list activists here implying that Doug or Louis are somehow critics from outside the movement.
Mike