I think a few of the arguments that you are guys are presenting need to be addressed.
The hypocrisy and/or naivety argument
1.) The protesters are being hypocritical and/or naive, as is made clear by the items/clothing/etc. that they bear - products that are (potentially) made available by capitalism, the very system that they protest against. They benefit from it, yet speak out against it. They take part of it, yet speak out against it. Clearly they are naive or hypocritical.
Response: The "hypocrisy" argument is often used, and it is a fairly disingenuous argument that has no real substance. It falls flat for several reasons.
One, to suggest that those rebelling against capitalism should not take part in capitalism requires an alternative mode of being. However, one of the fundamental characteristics of global capitalism is that it actively eliminates all alternatives to itself. To exist "outside" of capitalism is impossible. Every US citizen alive today was born in to it (save those born in previously communist countries); only meager and primarily symbolic, not fundamental, means are available for living "alternatively." When people are seen to live "alternatively," capitalism does one of two things: a.) It gives them the option of assimilate or die (as seen in nearly every interaction between civilization and indigenous people) or b.) It mocks them (if the threat is not deemed sufficient, as in the case of anarchy-primitivists, hippies, etc.). Manos, et al, your actions are part of the second response. It's odd to see you flame them for being too capitalist to speak out against it, but too silly, different, smelly, hippy, anarchist, etc., to be taken seriously. The fact is, one cannot actually exist outside of capitalism in order to then protest it. Your condition cannot be met, and you have created an unmeetable condition with the purpose of invalidating their actions entirely.
Two, to suggest that those rebelling against capitalism cannot have the trappings of a capitalist lifestyle, in whatever degree (evidently an Apple logo is quite enough, regardless of whatever else), implies that a person cannot both take part in something and simultaneously wish to dismantle it and envision a better alternative. This is madness. It is like saying that a factory worker should not wish or dream for a better life in a different profession because they are working the factory job and benefiting from the pay. Because we are invested in one thing does not mean we cannot hope or work towards a different thing. I would guess that a lot of people who are passionately against capitalism would gladly trade their iPhone for capitalism's demise - you, however, pretend the opposite and mock them as if there was legitimacy to the claim: clearly because they OWN an iPhone, they are choosing capitalism over something else, and either think they can have their cake and eat it too, or are naive or not truly committed. This is a logical fallacy and simply does not hold water. It again falls back on point number one, as well. We cannot control what we were born into, and as our system actively eradicates alternatives, we have no real hope of stepping outside of the system, leaving behind the trappings of that system.
But even more importantly, we don't have to. We don't have to have moral superiority or high ground. We don't have to be free of hypocrisy, or meet unmeetable demands before beginning our argument. If this were the case, no argument against the status quo would ever hold any water.
Three, to then make the arguments such as "these protesters are completely unaware of the privileges afforded to them by the system they cry out against" is an illogical leap and a loaded declaration (illustration courtesy of SuperBonk). How on earth could you possibly know this to be the case? Have you surveyed or polled the audience? Do you have statistical data gathered from similar protests in enough historical cases to speculate on specific population percentages reflecting this sentiment?
No. In reality, you are building a narrative. You are building the narrative that you want to hear and that you believe. Dressing it up like fact and delivering it like truth simply means you want to sell it. It doesn't make it true.
The reality is, a lot of these people, despite the fact that they own cellular phones and enjoy specific types of pizza, still understand the benefits and the drawbacks of capitalism (as evidenced by myself, other protesters and political activists I know, observable individuals at this protest, etc.). This knowledge, as explored before, simply does not enable one to shed capitalism and approach the argument from some moral high ground, nor does it require that they act like ascetics or puritans and attend the protest dressed in simple, homespun clothing, subsisting off of simple bread and water.
But you want to spin their involvement within capitalism into a proof of naivety, simply because it reinforces your inclination that this protest is somehow childish, uninformed, immature, and naive. Unfortunately, based on the information provided in the articles and pictures, that is simply not shown to be the case, and your evidence amounts to nothing.
Let us be clear, then, that the argument for hypocrisy or naivety is bunk. The reality of the situation does not allow for viable alternatives to capitalism to be practiced, nor are individuals unable to simultaneously benefit from capitalism while being against it, and knowingly so of the full range of benefits and drawbacks that it presents.
And when you express things like "Yes we get it. You hate capatalism. You've probably always hated it. Why should I care enough to stand with you?" you in turn need to understand that you don't have to. Protests aren't about coercion, and in reality, if you can't observe the problems of our economic situation and of global capitalism, then we probably have no business with one another. Protesting is the protesters choice, and abstaining, ignoring, or protesting in turn against said protest is your choice. Just don't act like they need your blessing to go about their business. This isn't your lawn, old man.
