|> what constitutes a "movement"?
This is not as complicated as you think. A movement is visible in the
streets, in the work places, door-to-door for the _issue_ not some
person, petitions, building occupations. marches, picketing. Demands on
institutions and governments and businesses, backed up by boycotts or
pickets or ....
That's what movement s hae _always_ been. In the U.S. movements end when
they are absorbed into the Democratic Party. No movement has ever
survived long after defining itself by its relation to the DP.
A movement does NOT consist in giving cheering for a savior.
We don't know, actually, how movements get underway. Thousands of people
around the country Have _always_, at any given time, been engaged
vigorously in the kind of actions that start movements, but for the most
part, decade after decade, they don't go anyplace. Then under some set
of unpredictable conditions they ignite. The fact that so many people
are always already trying their damndest in hundreds of localities to
start a movement is what makes Jim's and the Sandwichman's (and my)
calls for a movement sort of pointless. We keep on working: monthly or
weekly meetings, forums, leaflettings (all of this is going on
constantly) just because we do not know _when_ such activities will
suddenly ignite something larger, but unless we keep them up, no
What pisses us off about Obama's pseudo-movement is that it drains off
resources from that constant low-level activity which is so necessary as
the condition for any movement when it does start.