Are there flaws in Micah White's analysis of social movements?
Micah White cracked open the consensus that bigger crowds automatically bend history, yet his scalpel leaves a few tendons uncut. First, the premium he places on tactical novelty risks fetishising constant reinvention; movements also need durable rituals that weave identity over decades. Second, his sovereignty metric can feel hazy on the mechanics: how exactly does an encampment, a crypto-coin or a citizens’ council translate into enforceable authority while the old regime still wields courts and guns? Third, by foregrounding spectacular failure he sometimes underplays the quiet, cumulative wins of reformist slog—those small gains that keep working-class faith alive between ruptures. Finally, his lens is largely Atlantic; it can flatten the spiritual and land-rooted struggles that already operate outside Western protest scripts.
These are tensions, not fatal flaws. Use them as creative friction: blend novelty with tradition, pair sovereign experiments with legal offensives, and cross-pollinate northern theories with southern cosmovisions. Which of these tensions feels most urgent to test in your next campaign?