I think what differentiates a platitude/pseudo-critique is that critique questions the object while a pseudo-critique assumes it as premise and in doing so precludes actual criticism. These pseudo-criticisms are actually recuperated and end up reinforcing the state of affairs in very real ways. Unions 'sit at the table' and are actively involved in the process of cutting salaries/benefits and laying people off, women and homosexuals now get the chance to kill and die on the front lines of wars, now we have multiracial cops and prison guards, etc. Great... Lets have a universally fair and unoffensive representation of everyone to be consumed as images holding our attentions between viagra and tampon commercials.
that sounds about right to me. but that raises a question: do we not stand the risk of foregoing real improvements to people's lives in rejecting these institutional structures, which, as you say, serve to strengthen capital? so what you say about unions is true but, ceteris paribus, life in a unionized society would certainly be better than life in one without unionization, just due to the fact unionized workers are able to bargain for health benefits, safety regulations, et cetera. is a stance against the existence of a structure mutually exclusive with a stance on that same structure's internal operational details? and, importantly, is it right to conflate the latter with an explicit rejection of the former?
I mean everything you say sounds correct, and I don't think imperialism is any less bad when the ones killing brown people are gays and women. but to me those seem separate issues. I don't feel conflicted in taking a stance on the military's hiring policy and simultaneously believing the entire military should spontaneously combust.