> Chuck wrote:
> >Just think about what a difference in women's live could have been
> >made if thousands of people had donated money to create more clinics
> >in South Dakota, along with more activism, instead of wasting money
> >on liberal groups such as Moveon.org.
>
> -Hey, MoveOn.org is supporting Nathan's new employer!
>
> They're actually supporting a lot of great projects out
> there-- although
> actually not too much money for our outfit, although they're
> on our board.
AFIK, the so-called activistists have nothing to show beyond tough talk. It is the liberal groups like Moveon.org that get results, even if those results may sometimes be disappointing. Check out Gamson's book _The strategy of social protest_ in which he examines social movements in this country in a historical perspective and concludes that only those who accepted a compromise and cooptation to the mainstream that accomplished some social changes. The uncompromising tough-talkers and radicals were simply swept aside and into irrelevance.
And then there is Doug's point that one needs radicals for the moderates to be taken seriously. I do not buy it. It makes a heroic assumption that the ruling class is trembling in its boots on the very thought that social movement can threaten its position, hence it is working with less radical alternatives to diffuse the tension from below. There is no evidence that the ruling class has ever been seriously threatened by social movements, except perhaps when it was already weakened by larger events, such as wars or economic collapse. The ruling classes have always had means of keeping the masses in its place by a combination of persuasion, propaganda, cooptation, bribery and coercion - and that capacity only increased with the ascent of marketing techniques, media, new communication technologies, Keynesian state, etc. It does not need to appease radical social movements when it can simply ignore them or swat them like a fly if they become too annoying.
As Charles Tilly (_From Mobilization to Revolution_) shows, various social movements are co-opted by the elites for the elite's own power game vis a vis other elites. If various elements of the elite are in conflict with each other, they look for allies to tip the balance, and that creates a 'window of opportunity' for the right social movements to be admitted to power circles. It is clear that the elite defines the terms of that cooptation i.e. chooses the social movement that seem to best serve its purpose. Social movements that do not fit the elite purposes - which includes but is not limited to various radical factions - simply do not even enter the equation, they are largely irrelevant. If they get co-opted by the elite (like fascist thugs in Italy or Germany) it is only when the elite needs thugs to violently crush its legitimate opponents.
The bottom line is that if one is serious about social change, one needs start working with outfits like Moveon.org or otherwise be just an irrelevant malcontent. As they say in the old country, "dogs bark, the caravan moves on" (no pun intended).
PS. Congrats on your new job, Nathan.
Wojtek