Cubism, Futurism & Constructivism

By the early 20th Century, a new era of colonialism -- Imperialism --was in full swing. The colonization of the Americas was a thing of the past, especially since most of the continent had become independent sometime in the 19th century. Spain had for a long time lost its luster, and lost what little remained of its empire at the end of the 19th Century; Russia underwent a sort of Westernization which culminated in the 1917 revolution; Italy, as did Germany, unified but its industrialization/modernization was concentrated in the north, thereby creating a north/south rift; and then there was World War I.

Such was the context in which Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism found themselves in.
Given Cubisms' esotericity, can we really claim this as a movement? What constitutes a movement? Could we not say that most high art is elitist? And as such, is that not in a sense, esoteric (in a looser meaning of the word) and therefore not a movement if 'openness' were a requirement for the labeling of something as a movement?

These three movements were certainly quite different from one another. Yet at the same time, given the fact that they emerged in the early 20th century, they informed one another at least minimally. What each had in common was their 'rawness', constructed differently of course in each one: Cubism sought to deconstruct the traditional notion of reality and beauty; Futurism sought to glorify violence and speed, as though to foreshadow what was to come later that century; and Constructivism sought to shed the past by starting anew.