Corporate Democracy

[jcldragon]

We know how hard it is to stay informed, or even to vote. Corporate Democracy solves that problem.

The CEOs of the major corporations are experienced leaders, used to making difficult decisions on a daily basis. They understand the intricacies of economics, and world politics, since they deal with these thorny issues which affect the lives of billions of people, as a routine matters. Moreover, CEOs are privy to information not available to the general public, and thus, they are better informed than common people, and their decisions exceed in wisdom, compared to that of the ignorant masses.

Under Corporate Democracy the people are relieved of these burdens, freeing them to watch more Reality TV, & sporting events, secure in the knowledge that those with greater wisdom are making the enormously difficult world and economic policy decisions for them. Under Corporate Democracy votes are apportioned according to the size of the corporation, ensuring that those corporations whose operations are on the largest scale, will have the most say in world decision-making.

We should be grateful to these Captains of Industry for making this opportunity available to us!

/sarcasm

Honestly, this is a joke. :)

[Armstead]

1. Well you hit the nail on the head

You hit the nail on the head.

IMO that is the real issue splitting the Democratic Party. It all boils down to whether the Democrats are not only going to be the party of good intentions but also the party that speaks the truth about Corporate Power, and acts on it.

If the centrist DLC types would only recognize the threat that Corporate Democracy presents to Real Democracy, we could probably all find concensus on the rest.

[jcldragon]

2. Over at @Forumz

I only got one reply so far. That was from a traditional conservative. He said my post was scary, because a lot of people would never miss their right to vote.

[Imperialism Inc.]

3. Partly we are up against the very founders of the nation.

One of our Founding Fathers was among the first Americans to articulate the "crisis of democracy," as contemporary establishment eggheads term it.

What's the crisis? In the 1787 debates over the federal Constitution, James Madison pointed out how "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place."

To fend off such a crisis, "our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation," putting in place checks and balances in order to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison explained.

This stuff is never taught in history class, although the material is well known to celebrated historians 1

--
Madison feared that a growing part of the population, suffering from the serious inequities of the society, would "secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of blessings." If they had democratic power, there'd be a danger they'd do something more than sigh. He discussed this quite explicitly at the Constitutional Convention, expressing his concern that the poor majority would use its power to bring about what we would now call land reform.

So he designed a system that made sure democracy couldn't function. He placed power in the hands of the "more capable set of men," those who hold "the wealth of the nation." Other citizens were to be marginalized and factionalized in various ways, which have taken a variety of forms over the years: fractured political constituencies, barriers against unified working-class action and cooperation, exploitation of ethnic and racial conflicts, etc.

(To be fair, Madison was precapitalist and his "more capable set of men" were supposed to be "enlightened statesmen" and "benevolent philosophers," not investors and corporate executives trying to maximize their own wealth regardless of the effect that has on other people. When Alexander Hamilton and his followers began to turn the US into a capitalist state, Madison was pretty appalled. In my opinion, he'd be an anticapitalist if he were alive today -- as would Jefferson and Adam Smith.)2

--
"Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast"

"I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value"

-Alexander Hamilton

--

So this is an old story, but no less an important one.

[Imperialism Inc.]

4. 'nother Madison quote,

on seeing what the system he had designed in the Constitution was actually leading to (instead of what he had intended):

"the daring depravity of the times, as private powers become tools and tyrants of government, bribed by its largesses and overawing it with their powers and combinations, casting over society the shadow that we call politics."

[IrateCitizen]

5. IIRC, John Jay put it even more succinctly...

"The people who own the country ought to run it."

And let's also not forget the message taught by Shay's rebellion -- that the words of the Declaration of Independence were really just that -- words -- and not to be taken TOO seriously by the "common folk" of the nation.

[jcldragon]

6. Over at MysticWicks

It's a Pagan board, which is dominated by Libertarians, (although there are some Liberals there, too). The Libertarians are enjoying my satire, and not making fun of it at all.

[jcldragon]

7. The Language of the Neo-Cons

The thing I would want Conservatives & Libertarians to understand, is that when Liberals or Left-wing Progressives use words like Freedom & Democracy, we mean the same things that you do. We merely disagree about the implementation.

Neo-Cons, on the other hand, do not mean the same things, when they use those words. When Neo-Cons use words like Freedom & Democracy, they mean free-rein for Corporations, and Corporate control of politcal processes. They give lip-service to Free Enterprize, making it appear that they support small businesses, & individual effort. What they are intent upon, is monpolistic control of the economic landscape, reducing everybody not part of their tiny clique of multi-billionaires, to virtual serfdom at the lowest wages possible in an over-populated world. That is what they really mean by Globalization.

Multi-national corporations do not have alliegences to countries, rather, they like to acquire them. Many countries around the world are already in effect the property of multi-national corporations. Usually these have been small corupt dictatorships bought for chump change in bribes, allowing the multi-nationals to determine the entire economic landscape to suit their needs. However, increasingly they have been oustensibly democracies, which are a bit more complex to dominate.

The multi-national acquisition of the United States has been proceeding slowly, but steadily for a long time. The Free Trade & Guest Worker programs are designed to lower wages here, & bring them in alignment with the poverty that engulfs most of the world.

What people say, tells you what they want you to think. What people do, tells you what they think. In terms of Politics you compare the words used, with the actions taken, and then the intentions become clear. Globalization is the process by which wages & standards of living of workers in the most developed countries are lowered to match that of a world-wide average of over-populated poverty.