This is an interesting question.

As I said, I'm not trying to cast doubt on anyone's motives. I'm sure that NGOs and the like think they're doing the right thing. But that's just the problem: there's always an unfortunate tendency for movement bureaucrats to *identify* the interests of their particular organization with those of the movement as a whole. So you get measures designed basically to keep those bureaucracies alive and kicking: prostration before the Democrats with some mostly harmless and isolated acts of civil disobedience thrown in to pacify the disillusioned.

Now, it's impossible to get rid of the professionals entirely. Realistically, the movements needs at least some paid staff. The problem isn't one of eliminating them, but of eliminating their autonomous weight in movement organizations and their lack of accountability to a constituency.

And it's useless to try to create something better out of thin air. New organizations or existing ones need to emerge out of mass action. The larger and more genuinely militant these actions get, the more movement organizations confronted with an ultimatum: adaptation or decay. It's because of this, I think, that SDS is mostly to be applauded for its M19 action.

If such actions continue, organizational expressions of them will emerge. Whether it will take place within or outside of existing groups remains to be seen.