[35997279]

Incoherent? You mean you don’t understand the ideas themselves because of the medium by which it was transmitted? Be serious. You yourself are reading these words on a machine that is the result of capitalist and military influence. Does that mean that those aims, those causes, haven’t had a negative impact on, i.e, the environment or society? Certainly not.

By the standards you set, no idea which goes against the status quo can legitimate unless that status quo is so weak it can be totally circumvented: The biological corollary would be saying vaccines don’t work because they didn’t prevent every instance of the disease they were intended to prevent.

How many babies must we throw out with the bath water before we’re permitted to discuss the merits of the ideas themselves?

The misquote Sorkin, this the reason the Left in the United States looses so goddamn always.

[toyg]

The medium is the message. Embedding anti-capitalist discourse into capitalism is how progressives get coopted and neutered, always.

You don't have to be a maximalist to express ideas, but if you express maximalist ideas (and Klein does), then it's only reasonable to expect you to be coherent. Otherwise you're just playing a part, for the benefit of a system that requires token opposition.

To be fair, she occasionally tried to be coherent - supporting Chavez in Venezuela, for example. That didn't work that well either.

[35997279]

We are at least two generations removed from any possible, popularly conceivable alternative to capitalism. Such an alternative is not generated from thin air; it must be cultivated.

Any criticism, to be useful, must be consist of two parts: (1) An assertion of fault and (2) a suggestion of remedy. You haven’t even provided (1), not really, but let’s pretend for a moment you have. What is your remedy for Klein’s faulty expression of anti capitalism? Printing ‘zines from paper made from the pressed dryer lint of guerrilla laundromats? How far does your purity test go before it itself becomes just an excuse to refuse to discuss the ideas themselves?

Or shall we just admit that your position is merely nihilism? If that is the case, let us state it out right; this, at least, dispenses with pretense of ideology.