1) It is internally inconsistent. Recognition of a totally problematic society ought to preclude the possibility of just such accurate, conscious appraisals. The position committed to such universality cannot make an exception for its own theorizing: theory and theoretical practice is a part of and non-divorceable from the universe of structures judged problematic.  The position then ought to be deeply skeptical about the legitimacy of its conclusions, but it is not. The position rests on an unearned assumption that the grounds for thinking it are illegitimate, an assumption directly contradicted by the position staked out.