BUILDING THE MOVEMENT

So, how might we go about building such a mass movement? Pulling together existing organizations and efforts would appear to be an obvious place to start. All of the thousands of individuals and groups - nationally and internationally - that are targeting a wide array of corporate wrong-doing already constitute a massive movement to challenge corporate domination of our lives and our planet. The abundance of progressive organizations especially seem a natural starting place, with their organizational infrastructure and millions of members - potentially instant movement supporters, promoters, and activists. Furthermore, most of these groups are already familiar with how corporations are impacting their issues and concerns. They could quickly create the foundation for a broad-based, dynamic movement by carrying the message and strategies of the movement to their many supporters through organizational newsletters and other literature.

The recent actions against the WTO, IMF and World Bank are only the most visible signs of a much larger potential for organizing against corporate rule. While the WTO experience built some impressive alliances that continue to carry clout, these are still the exception in a vast sea of unrealized possibilities. Many groups and individuals may know they share common goals with others, yet currently, in the absence of a sizeable, clearly defined, organized mass movement, most continue to battle corporate power singly, politically, and only insomuch as it relates to their particular issues. Precisely because there is no big movement bandwagon to jump onboard, most efforts are still not about rolling back corporate power; instead they seek to continue resisting while promoting band-aid measures that attempt to deal with a multitude of problems created and worsened by corporate control. No one person or group believes it can single-handedly bring down the most powerful institution the planet has ever seen, so instead people focus on what they can do - as individual groups and persons. But what could they accomplish united? As disparate groups waging disparate campaigns, they are a troublesome and occasionally painful thorn in the corporate side - yet the corporate juggernaut continues down its destructive path. However, with a united mass movement, the potential to roll back corporate power and constrain corporate destruction suddenly looks very real.

The question we need to ask seems clear: how do we pull all of these groups together into an effective, unified movement to end corporate dominance? Part of the problem is that, because existing efforts remain disunited, with no clear or agreed upon goals or strategies, the developing movement is largely invisible. Yet a big part of the attraction to and power of a movement is that the unity feels powerful and gives its supporters a sense of intimate comradery and solidarity, fellowship and kinship, leading to a sense of power that further inspires hope, optimism and action. If our movement is still largely invisible, what is the motivation for organizations and individuals to join?

When fighting a particular corporation or policy, there may be no perception that one's efforts are actually a component of a much larger movement. Challenging a corporate power or policy might not directly translate into fighting all corporate power. For many, it doesn't make sense to view themselves as part of a movement to challenge corporate power until there actually is a clear and viable movement. Only when there is already such a movement underway that could conceivably challenge corporate power would it make sense to approach organizations to join in that effort. How can we articulate the enormous potential of this movement in order to court would-be supporters?

DEFINING THE MOVEMENT

Before there can be a unified movement, and before a group or individual can decide whether to join the movement, the movement must define itself. We don't have a movement first, and then decide what it stands for. Individuals and groups will be attracted to the movement because of what it stands for. In order for the movement against corporate dominance to be effective, to bring down corporate rule, it will need to be as large as possible. Ending corporate domination will entail dramatic changes in our society, culture, political system, economic system, governmental institutions, societal institutions, communities and lifestyles. There is no apparent quick fix to a century of increasingly intensified corporatization of the planet. We will have to make the changes we pursue appear evident and effective, possible and practical, inspiring and inevitable.

The public is not unaware of the encroaching impact of corporate power upon society. Much of the public is waiting for someone to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. But they don't want to hear it from people perceived as chronic whiners, or fringe radicals with no credibility, or from some disgruntled special interest known more for protesting than for constructive action. The public wants to hear it from a group they feel they can believe and trust, a group with a plan, that can provide hope and the possibility of change for the better. A broad movement can carry such credibility.

A Focused Goal With Broad Implications

A movement, such as one simply "against corporate domination," can unite the broadest possible movement, and thereby skirt characterization as a narrow, fly-by-night, impotent campaign with nothing new to offer. But how can we unite such a diversity of interests and concerns? Some would contend that movements are built by adopting the agendas of other causes. In attempting to adopt concerns as a way to recruit groups to join the movement, we run the risk of including each movement subgroup's agenda. But to have a movement that is too narrow, comprised of too many issues and specific goals, is to water down and complicate the message. We need our message to the public to be evident and clear: corporate domination is bad-bad for society, bad for the environment, and bad for you. End corporate domination.

The more narrow and specific the movement agenda, the fewer people and organizations will find themselves in agreement with all the stated goals of the movement. And trying to be too specific can become a slippery slope that can easily avalanche into a multitude of competing and contradictory viewpoints. Placing too many issues on the movement plate could keep many potential supporters from sitting down at the movement table.

The anti-war movement gained its strength not because it convinced all of its supporters that the war was unjust, imperialistic, racist, or capitalistic expansionism. That movement succeeded because it was able to unite a wide spectrum of groups and individuals who all thought the war was wrong, but for a variety of reasons: because the war was unwinnable; because winning it was not worth the cost; because it was not in the public interest; because our soldiers shouldn't fight other countries' wars; because of the high civilian casualties; because war is simply wrong, etc. Rather than adopting the agendas of other causes, we should endeavor to show those causes how the movement's agenda to end corporate dominance addresses their issues and concerns and assists in their objectives.

Such concepts as sustainability, environmental destruction, economic justice, and electoral reform may all be critical issues for any movement attempting to offer real solutions. While groups engaged in such concerns should continue to pursue their specific objectives, and utilize these issues to help pull their constituency into the movement, the initial thrust of the movement - while having broad implications for many issues - must remain simple and focused. Public understanding of various particular concerns may be necessary, or even central, in bringing about true, impactful changes. Nevertheless, these can be brought to the fore later. While battles over them may be absolutely essential, let's do first things first. People walk into a movement one step at a time, one foot at a time. Once they are onboard with the idea that corporate rule is destructive and must go, we can approach them with discussion of how best to address various issues. But there will be no second agenda if we can't build enough support for the first. None of the other legitimate concerns is likely to accomplish its agenda without first addressing the problem of corporate dominance, and those concerns are more likely to defeat corporate domination if they join forces uniting in a single, vast movement than if they attempt to confront corporate power divided.