Do some people disagree with Micah White's approach to activism?
Absolutely. The End of Protest rattled plenty of seasoned organisers. Some trade-union stalwarts accuse Micah of surrendering the hard-won strike, insisting that numbers plus persistence still bend bosses. Electoral progressives resent his refusal to funnel street energy into ballot boxes. Even certain horizontalists bristle at his talk of “new sovereignties,” fearing it smells of separatism rather than solidarity.
Yet those critiques illuminate the fault-lines in contemporary resistance: spectacle versus leverage, reform versus rupture, moral witness versus power seizure. Disagreement signals that Micah’s thesis—mass marches are ritualised and predictable, victory now requires tactical novelty and institution-building—cuts against deep habit. The friction is healthy; movements thrive on generative dissent, not ideological monoculture.
Instead of choosing camps, ask whether a tactic provokes fear in power or merely satisfies our conscience. If your go-to method feels strangely comfortable, that may be the surest sign it is obsolete.
Which cherished ritual are you prepared to retire in order to frighten the system again?