[WS:] Same here. What bothered me, and still does, is that for many of those folks the discussion centers not on the ends to be accomplished but on the means of accomplishing them, which then become an end in itself. It is not about what kind of world we want to live in, but whether we should break windows or refrain from doing it, whether we should be fighting the cops or protesting peacefully, whether we should have a full consensus or a simple majority will do, or whether we should go with the flow or form another splinter group. And so on.
These are classic symptoms of being a cult, and reading Graeber only confirms that this tendency is well and alive. Quite frankly, I think these "movements" are intellectually bankrupt and have nothing to offer - zip, zilch, nada, zero - except their participatory rituals. They are nothing but secular versions of religious cults that are a dime a dozen in this "post-modern" world. While nothing forces me to be a part of these cults, this nonetheless leaves me sad because it makes it obvious that there is no viable counterweight to the neoliberal hegemony - at least one that I can identify with. The only moderately viable (in the sense getting popular support) counterweight is Islamist fundamentalism - but having to choose between the two, I'd take neoliberalism.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."