Well, you are dead wrong on #2. The millions who demonstrated against the Iraq war around the world weren't organized. They responded to the issue, and their feet followed. There truly was no global recruitment campaign that organized the demonstrators in advance, beyond the same organizing that gets done for all major demos. That is what is meant by "mass movement". No one organizes those. They just reach critical mass, like they did when the no-nukes movement stopped nuclear power in it's tracks in the wake of Three Mile Island.

The big difference? The issue, and how strongly millions of people feel about it.

Compromise is not critical to extending political power. There are so many movements throughout history which have proved that, from taxation without representation, to slavery, to women's suffrage, to ending apartheid, etc etc.

You don't compromise on the big stuff, and when you are trying to force the issue, you don't either.

Compromise in conventional governmental politics is merely a buzzword, and really only meaningful in a legislative context. Politics encompasses much, much more than that. When agitation and forcing issues to a higher place on politicians and governments' agendas from outside the system is the goal, you never compromise.

I agree that coalition building is good for the process. But you have to remember, coalition building is also what corporations and their lobbyists do.