Memberless movements

So, I am beginning to feel as if memberless movements (Black Lives Matter, Anonymous, other umbrella organizations) are a failure as an idea. Black Lives Matter is receiving flack because of the Dallas shootings where five policemen were killed and more injured. Anonymous also accepts blame for many things either right or left-wing. Al Qaeda even, and to a lesser extent ISIL accepts blame for nearly everything in order to pull Western nations to the fight.

Occupy was another one of these memberless leaderless movements. It quickly failed.

The Civil Rights Movement succeeded due to voting drives and somehow not alienating people enough to gather people into a majority. The Civil Rights Act passed (though probably as a method of winning the Democrat voters that were black).

The way to win is to become a majority, while getting attention. By having unofficial groups, there are no membership rolls to sign. There are simply petitions to gather.

One group I used to be associated with that is not memberless is the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. They limit the need to gather petitions by having large membership rolls. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference eliminated hangers on by keeping their membership official.

So, if anyone is contributing to Black Lives Matter or whatever, start making official memberships. Leadership movements quickly become associated with hangers on. Not that you care what I say.

UPDATE: I recently heard Caleb Carr's interview by James Altucher. He seemed to confirm my idea that ISIL will accept blame for anything that seems relevant. He said that the 2015 San Bernardino attackers were merely needing their future deaths to have meaning and swore allegiance to Al Baghdadi at the last moments before the attacks.