I paused, realizing with surprise what I had just said. For the first time since the late 1960s, I think it's becoming possible to talk about 'the' movement, something greater than the sum of its parts. She wasn't convinced. Everyone who cares about such things is pondering the state of activism, in the wake of the plucky D.C. protests against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It's worth taking a closer look at what this current upsurge of activism is, and is not, in order to clarify what it might become.
Direct action is the driving force behind the new unrest.
Engaging in direct action doesn't necessarily mean breaking the law or getting arrested. It can involve, for example, jamming the telephone lines of one's opponents, as supporters of the jailed protesters in D.C. did for days after their arrest. When direct actionists do break laws, they're often benign ones like traffic rules, rather than laws that are intrinsically immoral or unjust. They generally lack manifestos, programs, or platforms, relying instead on shared values as the basis for action. But the emphasis on action over ideology has helped facilitate a range of novel political collaborations in recent time, perhaps the most distinctive feature of the new unrest.