Wojtek: > The problem is that even if Wisconsin protest movements spreads
> it will either fizzle out or - in the best case scenario - it will be
> coopted by mainstream interests, most likely Democrats. According to
> William Gamson, who studied social movements in the US for the past
> 100+ years (_The Strategy of Social Protest_) these have been the
> outcomes of social protest movements in the US.
You may be right, but what's the alternative? Masturbate gloomily?
.--------
He is both absolutely correct and totally wrong. The 'problem' with his post is that he doesn't have any idea of the _content_ of the fizzing out in a particular case or the _content_ of the cooptation in a particular place. Similarities between different social movements are superficial. To understand them you have a really difficult task of identifying (a) what they aimed at (never very simple to name) and (b) what they achieved, and (c) what was, in the given conditions, materally POSSIBLE to achieve.
Almost all the laragae social movements in u.s. history (and there haven't been that many) were, realistically (historically) seen completely successful.
It is stupid at this time to make any general statements about Wisconsin. It's meaning will only be minimally understood even several years from now. Suppose someone had written a book, "The Meaning of the Civil Rights Movment" (and seriously intended it to be a complete summing up) while those students were still having coffee dumped over their heads at the Woolworth lunch counter. Only an idiot (probably a real character at the time, writing for the New York Times) would have attempted a summary.
There are epistemological problems here not clearly defined, as there are epistemological problems not identified or explored in the "orgy of speculation" threads.
Carrol