If furries are complicity in global capital, then what good are they?
What do they offer that points in the direction of some sort of
transformative change in the ways power is distributed between people?
Perhaps furry identity practice can offer some sort of play with the way
that subjects must consume the appropriate goods in order to demonstrate
group membership. If man ``throughout the history of metaphysics or
ontotheology...  has dreamed of full presence, the reassuring origin,
and the end of play'' and the alternate interpretation of interpretation
``affirms play and tries to pass beyond man and humanism,'' (292) as
Derrida suggests, what better way to try to slide out from underneath
structure than playing animal? No single playful move, no matter how
theoretically brilliant or how covered in fake fur, can work its way
out of capitalism in a single step. Even if furries were trying to work
out a new organization of power in the process of self-animalization,
it would not be possible to build a new system that did not contain the
older system within itself.

Importantly, furries as a class are {\it not} trying to dismantle
capitalism.  That furry practices offer a challenge at all is because
the structure does not provide room for them, and must either change
its shape to accommodate them or find furries turning on it.