Inevitably, there will be alliance-building within the movement with attempts to pull together diverse agendas. That's fine - simply another wedge of the pie - but an alliance should not define the entire, much broader movement. Such alliances within the movement could forge large coalitions (essentially banding their wedges together to create a larger, unified slice) that might increasingly be able to steer the movement toward specific goals and a specific agenda. But to do so, and especially to do so too early, runs the risk of defining the entire movement too narrowly and introducing too many complex and unfamiliar visions to a public still trying to grasp the concept and implications of corporate domination. As the movement matures, and public understanding of the issues improves, the movement as a whole can begin to examine and focus upon more issues, such as sustainability, electoral reform, critical environmental concerns, and even what kind of economy we want as a society, and how to create it.

While presenting a clear and unified message to the public, we can continually push for greater understanding of the various visions within the movement. We can all work to clarify and fine-tune our own ideas, and seek to understand the agendas of others in the movement. As long as all viewpoints are welcomed and heard, there will be less resentment and disunity when the movement begins to veer in one direction or another. We should not allow one viewpoint or selected direction to dominate the movement by excluding other voices.

As the movement grows in numbers and influence, it will have to make decisions about where to go. It will need to construct a vision of where it is taking society, and how it intends to get there. The movement can mean different things to different groups. But we can build support for these diverse and divergent views while standing together under the umbrella of a unified movement. Ultimately, there can be several different paths all leading to different competing or noncompeting visions. The movement needs to provide more hope for the public than will be offered by the government or corporations when they inevitably come forward with their own "solutions." The broader, more promising and realistic the visions, the less likely either the movement or the public will be willing to support governmental band-aids or half-solutions, or modest corporate concessions that might otherwise pull the momentum out from under the movement.

Decentralized Leadership

In a movement composed of so many slices, decision-making will be decentralized, making the movement hard to control. While groups will seek cooperation, coordination, and collaboration, ultimately there will be no central leadership. Various leaders will rise to prominence among various groups, but the movement as a whole should not seek centralized leadership. A leadership that does not represent all viewpoints would lead to infighting and divisiveness, and centralized power is ultimately one of the things many in the movement are fighting against. Centralized leadership would also result in a more vulnerable movement. If the corporations could succeed in discrediting, co-opting, or killing the movement's head, they could effectively kill the movement.

Without centralized control, each group will ultimately be responsible for its own actions. Attempts to portray the entire movement as culpable for various actions will be readily dismissed. However, being a responsible individual or group within the movement does not mean policing our movement. Attempts to police the movement will not only draw attention away from the movement, but would also create a perception that the entire movement is responsible for failures in policing. Instead, individual groups should be held responsible for their own actions, and each group should be free to state its views in support of or in disagreement with the various actions of others. The movement should resist being portrayed as narrow, dogmatic and opposing a diversity of views. It needs to be able to point out those characteristics in the corporate world.

Fun with Factions

As in all movements, there will be some groups with more extremist views than others. While such elements may compromise the credibility of the movement to some degree, the presence of the extremist elements also tends to make the "mainstream" body of the movement seem more acceptable to the mainstream public. Fringe groups not only tend to help legitimize movements, they can also have the effect of continually pushing the movement toward a grander vision and ideals. What once sounded radical can end up sounding more moderate, and even the norm.

Occasionally, a group may want to try to distance itself from particular actions or other groups in the movement. That is preferrable to attempting to distance these other groups from the movement. We can disagree on the kind of world we are trying to build, but realize that none of us can build anything as long as corporations are in control. Unity is our strength, not our weakness. Controversial groups are going to be characterized and defined as part of the movement - even when they are not - whether we like it or not. Disruptive infiltrators and front groups will inevitably attempt to discredit the movement, but too much energy focused upon exposing and distancing ourselves can confuse and complicate the message and distract the public from the actions of the larger movement.

It can be anticipated that radical actions, especially those that are destructive and violent, will be used by the corporate and government establishments to justify ever wider and harsher crackdowns on the movement. Some groups say that this crackdown is inevitable - and even essential - in order to expose the brutality of the corporate regime, thereby gaining public support for the movement. While it is unlikely that these groups will change their minds about seeking such confrontation, they may be willing to see the strategic importance of holding off, at least until the movement can get off the ground. In order for such repression to result in greater support for the movement, there should be a credible movement, with broad public support, already in place. Otherwise a crackdown would result in groups and individuals quickly disassociating themselves and their agendas from the movement in order to avoid persecution. Third World models of civil rebellion, wherein an utterly impoverished and oppressed majority take up arms against the establishment, are unlikely to be effective in this country, at this time.