I threw my support to Young on the issue of CO OPTION, and the false Spring occupy movement posted here earlier with this response:

 Yes, The 99% Spring Is A Fraud:  http://warisacrime.org/content/yes-99-spring-fraud:  "Co option is how class

history began: It = inversion & corruption"  I urge everyone to read my comment beforehand of this follow up comment, as

Young's article has now been counterposed with another problem, the relationship between CO OPTATION and SECTARIANISM/DOGMA.

David Swanson discusses this debate on the radio show, where the word CO OPTION is abstracted into parallel phenomena, like another

article which discusses the Occupy movement co opting Move on.    The confusion of who is doing the co option revolves around clear

definitions which too were discussed on this show, namely the relationship between Fascism and Communism, where the former

was clearly defined, but the latter was left standing with two complete different meanings.  So to delineate the relationship between

Communism and social theory vs Communism smeared/linked  with totalitarianism, like Stalinism, already abstracts the word

 into abstractions without historical context.  Ditto for the debate between Young's Fraud Occupy movement article and Daniel Schecter's article

on Sectarianism.   The relationship between CO OPTION and SECTARIANISM/DOGMA is similar to the problem on the relationship

between Fascism and Stalinism, and the other between Fascism and Social principles.   Here is Schecter's article:

Will a "Fight To The Finish" Tear Occupy Apart or Save Its "

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Will-a-Fight-To-The-Finis-by-Danny-Schechter-120414-894.html

All of these words can be classified as "buzzwords" IF NOT DEFINED CORRECTLY, but those very same words can become

real concepts reflecting truth, if put into correct context and definitions.  Therefore, I agree with David Swanson that the wrong

response to the charge of Communism is to leave it open to interpretation, or to deny the correct relationship with social principles.

That is why the definition of Fascism as it applies to all class ideologies today, makes this no longer a buzz word, but defining

the parameters of the word, to corporatism/state police relation.   The correct response is to point out that all ideologies embrace,

whether falsely or correctly the social principle, and then DEFINE IT, in the way I did to Young's article.

The key is not to let some other concept, like Totalitarianism/Stalinism BE EQUATED FALSELY with social principles, or even Socialism,

Marxism.   These parallel deformed CLASS OUTCOMES, FASCISM AND STALINISM, along with a host of other class deformed outcomes,

class accomodation, whether the Post Colonial states, or Business Unionism, OR class deformed social reforms.....ALL SHARE THE

SAME FAILURE, to be INDEPENDENT, INDIVISIBLE from class deformed civil societies hence CO OPTED, INVERTED, A CLASS OUTCOME.

In the same way the relationship between CO OPTION and Sectarianism/dogma IS DEFINED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TRUE SOCIAL,

FORCES IN PLAY, whether it is moving away from class hierarchies, dissolving them through social principles and social parties.

Swanson is right on pointing out the CLASS DEFORMED NATURE of so called Democratic "PROGRESSIVES", who reflect the thinking

one sees by class Liberals, appeasing the democratic class party that has degenerated into Fascism, itself.    You can always tell

who they are as soon as they falsely divide the social principle into the false choices between Republicans and Democrats. 

So long as class liberals CO OPT social principles, as they did the Enlightenment, continuing the co option where it first started, with

the Patriarchy, class hierarchies and its class mechanism.   The sectarian Dogma DOES NOT LIE, IS NOT LINKED TO SOCIAL PRINCIPLES

it is linked to the failure to dismantle class history , class hierarchies, Patriarchy-class mechanism itself, focusing MOSTLY ON ENDLESS

SMALLER SINGLE ISSUES, and ALSO the endless, false strategies, ITSELF CO OPTION, on every issue, which is NOT IMPORTANT,

if the GENERIC SOCIAL PRINCIPLE IS NOT the goal by accomodating on small issues, that only negate the SOCIAL GOAL OF ENDING

CLASS HISTORY.  All Social movements have degenerated into this form of sectarianism, single issue dogmas, and failed to see that

PARTIAL, SOCIAL REFORMS, can only end as Co option, thereby producing its own dogma, accomodation with class power.  Sectarianism

is a sign of CO OPTION itself, reflecting the failure to end class history, class parties, class politicians, world wide, which would make

social power INDEPENDENT AND INDIVISIBLE.