Can democracy survive corporative capitalism?

[efhmc]

Capitalism that thrives on the individual's desire to create and run his/her own business does not seem to be at cross purposes with democracy. On the other hand, the deconstruction of the worker as a human with rights and needs, the use of the masses as consumer units and the overwhelming mass conglomeration of businesses seem to be making the rights of the individual less and less important. This saturation of corporate money then drives the government and that corporation government only sees issue as pro or negative business. Thus the rights of the people will always suffer. Usually, America has survived those times. Today, I see less and less the drive or desire to overcome the yolk of the corporation. I see a society over saturated with mediocre media; a society more and more of bread and circuses. What do you think?

[Tace]

1. I Had To Erase My First Reply -- It Was So Bleak

I will be surprised to see real Democracy in my lifetime.

[efhmc]

2. One of my daughers (in her early thirties) suggested this to me the

other day. She said that it is impossible for democracy to suvive under capitalism. I argued with her but am not so sure she is not correct. I'd like to read your first thoughts.

[burrowowl]

50. Read Kevin Phillips

Wealth and Democracy

The answer is NO. Even Adam Smith who wrote the oft misinterpreted Wealth of Nations, knew that you have to give the sheeple something.

[indigobusiness]

61. A culture can be brainwashed

even while aware it is happening.

Over time, the love of money has grown beyond all rational and practical significance in our country. We, as a culture, are losing touch with something fundamentally important about humanity. The constant hammering of our collective psyche by material value judging has taken its toll in the unlikeliest places.

From the heart of an area flush with churchgoers, a story came to me by a man of unimpeachable integrity. He is struggling financially and has left a string of jobs in his wake. Time after time he has been asked to make an ethical compromise in order to accommodate the bottom-line. He always refuses. It troubles him to repeatedly witness seemingly decent people expect him to readily sell out when taking the high-road would not be profitable.

Honest businesses are becoming as rare as the man I mentioned. Despite appearances, I fear too many are corrupted by a view of the bottom-line as sacred.

[breadandwine]

68. We must march against Fox and the rigged election.

Not talk. Action. STREET action. Action in the STREETS. Huge public protest. A joint protest against the rigged election and Fox right in front of Fox World Headquarters in New York with the chant, “Rupert Murdoch, tell the truth! Fascists rigged the voting booth!” Fox is headquartered in mid-Manhattan on the SECOND floor. We’re going to be right outside their windows by the thousands screaming our guts out where they can hear us. Bad vibrations? Too bad studio soundproofing isn’t perfect. We must deny them legitimacy at all costs. Bush didn’t win. His election is a fake. Vast numbers of Americans still don’t know this because Bush shills like Fox cover it up. Fox must be targeted. Their headquarters are in New York. The other papers and media in New York will cover this protest because they all hate Fox’s living guts in New York. See this blog:

A Call To March On Fox
For refusing to tell the truth about the rigged election! —

http://acalltomarchonfox.blogspot.com/

Read it. Read it all. Contact the blogger there to get involved.

Go to this thread and participate in the discussion — A call to march against the rigged election — includes extensive discussion about the planned march on Fox/rigged election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2688242

Add your comments there, keep that thread kicked. There’s going to be a huge march in New York combining protest against the rigged election and the Bush shills like Fox who cover it up, a double whammy. After that, the cat will be out of the bag and Bush will have lost legitimacy.

Why is that important? Because legitimacy is essential for de facto power. Official or “de jure” power is not enough for a leader to maintain control. He has to also have the INTANGIBLES of legitimacy — de facto authority. That’s why presidents can become lame ducks in their second term. Bush must be denied LEGITIMACY. His whole presidency must be publicly DELEGITIMIZED. People in other countries will hear about the march too. This will add to his difficulties diplomatically overseas. To deny legitimacy we must march against the rigged election.

Where? At the number one shill covering it up — Fox. Fox Headquarters in New York. Fox may or may not admit we are in front of their New York offices but the other New York news organizations will because they hate Fox. See the above blog for full details on that and the whole march plan. See and post on the above thread to get involved. Keep that thread kicked.

[BamaBecky]

3. I'm very worried about how the corporations have raided America! n/t

[efhmc]

4. It's a pretty massive worry but the masses do not seem to care.

So inch by inch their rights are being taken from them. So sad for our country.

[Fleshdancer]

52. What American corporations have done to other nations is even scarier

Atleast in America, the worker still has rights (for now) and there are environmental standards (somewhat). What scares me is American capitalism in the face of globalization without any real international over sight. It's a slash and burn for the sake of an extra buck type mentality. The lack of ethics frightens me and the more our own standards, regulations, and unions are weakened, the closer we are subjected to that very same standard.

[Ardee]

5. Coprporate "personhood" has got to go

A device in which corporations elude responsibility under the law for their actions.

The system which allows lobbyists to influence legislation through campaign handouts and other quasi legal perks has created this flawed version of Capitalism. Real campaign finance reform is the first step to restoring a balance......

[LSparkle]

7. Exactly

When a corporation has more rights than an individual, the country is in trouble .. It has been for a long time.

[efhmc]

8. Isn't campaign finance reform like trying to get the fox out of the hen

house with a butterfly net? I agree with what you say but I see the possibility of those things happening getting further and further from us.

[Ardee]

10. The power is in the money

Controlling the power of money in politics is certainly no butterfly net, more like the nuclear hammer......Unless and until we make politicians seek funding at the grassroots level we the people will take a back seat to we the corporation....

[efhmc]

12. Actually wishing for something better to fight the situation with. A

nuclear hammer sounds just right but where are the people to get that hammer?

[Ardee]

14. A cause with which to stem the tide

of the Democratic Party's swing to the right. With the stepping down of McAuliffe, the consummate fund raiser, the neocons lose a powerful ally in the party. Perhaps a call for real reform might be advanced by the new leadership.

I ,for one, am pushing for the Green Party to make that reform a large part of their platform. I believe that this issue is one of the most very important steps top ridding this nation and it's policies of corporate enslavement.

[efhmc]

28. I rode to an appreciation dinner for some Texas candidates with a

group of hard working Dems from our county. (Out of the 6 folks, one had won.) Two of the group from my county were for hitting the liberal difference. (One of those people was me.) The state chair who spoke and most others were not. I am who I am and will never be anything else but I would really like to win. Does that make me a hypocrite because I do no think we can do it as "real liberals". God knows, I wish and pray that liberals win but we live in a country of morally bankrupt idiots who are lead by others who reflect that same image so I am not sure when or if we will even win again.

[ixat]

56. Word.

I don't know enough about corporate rights, but campaign finance reform is absolutely essential.

[McKenzie]

6. comment and link inside

Huge question but the runes don't look good. It seems early Americans, by which I mean up until the end of the 19th C, were rightly wary of corporate power. The corporate apologists gibber on about free enterprise and market discipline but what they peddle is the antithesis of Bentham and Smith's concept of free markets.

Have a look at this wee section from dieoff.org--->>>

http://dieoff.org/page12.htm

<snip>

The Profit Imperative: Profit is the ultimate
measure of all corporate decisions. It takes precedence over
community well-being, worker health, public health, peace,
environmental preservation or national security. Corporations
will even find ways to trade with national
"enemies"—Libya, Iran, the former Soviet Union, Cuba—when public policy abhors it. The profit imperative and
the growth imperative are the most fundamental corporate drives;
together they represent the corporation's instinct to
"live."

<snip>

The main page (linked at top of page I posted) is full of goodies...or maybe that should be baddies coz quite a lot of it leaves one totally doomed up.

[efhmc]

9. Thanks, I will go read. It seems to me that there was once honor in being

the "common man/woman" and now there is only value in the person who makes it, no matter how.

[ixat]

57. Good excerpt, Ctrl+C for future reference.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

11. The idea that corporatism and capitalism cannot coexist

with democracy is nonsense. The issue is not whether or not they can coexist, but whether or not they can coexist without ethics.

There are many companies that can and do exist within the confines of democracy, from the standpoint that they not only respect the rights of their workers, but they use their human resources and means of attracting them as a marketing tool for their company.

Cases in point are the former Malden Mills, Kimberly Clark, and 3M. Malden Mills burnt to the ground in the mid 1990s and the owner, realizing he was insured and that his workers represented the bulk of the local workforce, paid them in full while he rebuilt. By taking care of his workforce, they in turn took care of him.

Kimberly Clark's corporate culture takes the attitude that a good idea can come from anywhere in the company. I believe it was a secretary that came up with the idea of the cartoon strips on diapers facing the baby, not the parent. I also believe she was well rewarded.

At 3M, I think they still take ownership to the extreme. They used to have a program where any emplyee could come up with an idea and present it to an internal innovation board. If the board liked the product, they would team the employee up with a mentor and produce a feasibility study. If it passed that stage, they would create a business plan, and the employee would be in charge of the product line. After a certain amount of time, 3M would spin the line out into a separate company and the employee would be the owner.

The fundamental problem in this country is that we have lost sight of what comprises leadership. For democracy and capitalism to coexist, we need leaders who not only posess a solid moral compass, but also they also need to lead and grow their talent. Someone once told me leadership is not just being the best at what you do, but it also ionvolves bringing everyone around you up to a better level of performance.

Good leaders recognize they can use things like flex time and other innovative practices to entice employees to increase production. Good leaders realize that lowering the costs of high turnover increases profitability. Good leaders realize that apositive corporate culture is an asset that not only attracts better quality employees, but better quality customers as well.

DBDB

[efhmc]

13. I enjoy reading your thorough analysis. You cited some examples that

work but aren't those companies in the minority? What I am wondering is not so much if it can work (it has done so in the past) but whether we, as citizens, have given up guarding and promoting that relationship. I am certain that if the majority of us do not do fight for our rights in corporate America, that democracy will limp along and finally will exists in name only.

[sandnsea]

49. Multinationals have no country loyalty

They only care about ownership rights. They don't care what country gives it to them or the type of government the country has. In fact, I've read CEO's prefer dictatorships because they're stable. I think our democracy is pretty near a joke as it is because if the people don't think changing leadership changes the direction of the country, then they've already given up the core principle of democracy.

[w4rma]

15. You can't have a system where a few people keep expanding their power

at the expense of everyone else and still keep democracy. Eventually these people will have enough power to overthrow democracy and they WILL do it. That, imho, is what is happening, now.

[efhmc]

20. The next question is: Can it be stopped? Or do people want to stop it?

[mmonk]

16. Businesses can exist under democracy

but democracy can't exist under corporatism.

[efhmc]

21. What exactly is the dividing line between the two, since corporations are

businesses?

[dpibel]

60. That corporations are businesses

does not mean that all businesses are corporations. Sorry to state the obvious, but it seemed like you missed it.

Also, there's a difference between "corporatism," which I take to mean what we have in this country at present, namely, rule by corporations, and the mere existence of corporations. The latter neither implies nor requires the former.

It is surpassing strange to me that people seem to feel that corporations are a force of nature; that commerce necessarily requires the corporate form. They haven't existed for all that long and, contrary to popular belief, haven't done all that much good.

Corporations are a legal construct, originally created to limit personal liability for entrepreneurs. They were originally limited in scope of activity and duration. They were originally tightly controlled by the issuing authority. Those conditions no longer exist.

Corporations are now gigantic, immortal entities which have inexplicably been granted the rights of humans, although not the responsibilities. They are driven solely by profit, and that is often a statutory requirement.

A return to other forms of doing business would not result in the fall of civilization. It would, in fact, be a good start.

[cattleman22]

64. Libertarian candidate advocated for getting rid of liability limits

He advocated that every owner of every business be personally liable for all business decisions. I do not know how effective that would be. My families farm was sole proprietorship with no limits on libailities. But for larger companies in which the owner has no day to day knowledge of the happenings, why should the owner be responsible?

[dpibel]

66. Because the owner gets all the benefits?

Just a shot. . .

I mean, it really is a pretty spiff deal when you get limitless play on the upside, but if things go south, you've got a stop loss.

I suppose you're concerned about someone who owns one share of Dow Chemical getting hit for a share of Bhopal liability (as if Dow will ever be held liable for those damages). One answer to that is: if shareholders were held proportionately liable, they'd tend to be a lot more informed, and they might tend to keep a tighter rein on the companies in which they invest.

That, of course, is an argument against gigantism. If you're dealing with mega-corps, it's very hard to keep track of what they're up to. But arguments against gigantism are not bad. Remember, in their original form, corporations were limited in scope of enterprise. That they have morphed into doers of all things for all purposes is not per se a good thing.

I understand the arguments about squelching the entrepreneurial spirit and such. But the vaunted American entrepreneurial spirit was alive and well in the 19th century, when corporate charters were not being given out like candy.

I don't think corporations are evil as a matter of necessity. I think gigantic, multinational corporations pretty much are. Human-scale, tightly regulated corporations may be a useful thing. Corporations of any size which end up being the de facto government are bad. Period.

[mmonk]

67. Businesses or corporations

can exist under government structure, but a corporate structure as a government structure can't support democracy since democratic structure and corporate structure are fundamentally different with regard to purpose.

[AP]

17. Bread & Circuses = Fast Food & ESPN.

The Fall of the American Empire.

[Carl Brennan]

18. I agree with the dehumanizing aspects of corporate control. What

is so hypocritical about the free marketers is that they never raise a shout when corporations feed at the government trough. But when the poor seek assistance then they squeal like pigs.

Since the rules about free enterprise are being broken with subsidies, then why not subsidize people?

[efhmc]

22. They will argue that helping business gives people jobs so it is okay.

[Carl Brennan]

25. Reply: Why not just help people directly with jobs programs or whatever.

OOps, I forgot, war solves the employment problem.

[efhmc]

29. The suggestions of liberals are too humane and make too much sense

to ever have any merit in the world of the bush corporation/government. Sorry.

[Carl Brennan]

38. Damn we finally agree on something, hee.

:hi:

[efhmc]

40. Did we disagree before. It seems to me we were always on the same

page. It might have been a different paragraph but we were together.

[Cats Against Frist]

41. Yes they do -- some

Right-Wing Libertarians and "pseudo-free marketeers" are often confused. Lots of them are freepers who think they're pseudointellectuals -- these ARE the people who worship money, above all else, and wrongly see the "free market" as what the GOP stands for, now, only with deregulation and fewer taxes.

In fact, the GOP is corporatist, or corpo-fascist, and they have nothing to do with the free market, whatsoever -- and the funny thing is that most of their constituents wouldn't even know how to handle their free-market "responsibilities" if it bit them on the ass end.

There are a multitude of things that GOPTARDS support, that they are unaware are the antitheses to the free market, such as -- deploying the U.S. military for corporate purposes, the corporation's status as a legal human, corporate and farm welfare, subsidy and bailout, red state pork, big-government-engineered "trickle down" economic policies, closed-door deals with energy companies, militarization, border control, laws prohibiting the following "business" ventures and transactions: medicinal marijuana and other drug use, prostitution, gambling, professional euthanasia -- even censoring television is technically "against the free market," -- remember, the market sorts EVERYTHING out -- not someone's constructed morality. In addition, the Bush administration, in cahoots with pharma have both stripped the federal government of its consumer bargaining power, as well as prohibiting the purchase of drugs from Canada -- going as far as to threaten "storefronts" with arrest.

NONE NONE NONE NONE of these things are "free market" -- they're corpo-fascist -- but most GOPTARDS, freepers and pseudolibertarians don't even realize this and blanketly support it.

I feel we would actually be FAR better off with a free market -- insofar as it was accompanied by a discriminating laborer and consumer, and a swift and serious justice system for those who have been robbed of their life, liberty or property by the negligence, gross negligence or reckless disregard of a corporate entity. We'd be much better off if we would give up national chains and brand names and shop locally, re-boost our manufacturing base and ditch some of this consumer bullshit.

The problem is -- many "free marketers" are not really free marketers -- they're corpo-fascists and corporatists trying to pull one over on people, or are just ignorant themselves.

[efhmc]

42. Gosh, as much as I hate having to admit it, I think a totally free market

seems scary. It seems so wild and abandoned and without the controls and caps that help the little person. Please help me understand how or why this is not so.

[Cats Against Frist]

45. Oh, I think it's scary, too -- but not because it's flawed in theory

only because most consumers wouldn't have any idea how to handle it. In a free market, the consumer has to be responsible, and the laborer discriminatory -- and large unions, getting their power from solidarity would help, too -- problem is, the plebs are brainwashed, apathetic and lazy and have a national consciousness, where they're attached to certain brand names, and have no thought beyond that about where their products come from, or how they're made, or if the company is scrupulous or not.

In addition, there would have to be a major value shift in our country. "Personal Responsibility" has been pawned off on the lower classes, but that needs to be instilled in the businessperson, the CEO, the boss -- as an above poster mentioned about 3M and those other corporations, that part of corporate culture should not just be about profit, but about care and cultivation of quality employees and community responsibility.

And even though the concept of a free market scares you, now -- it seriously would not be too much worse than the corporatism that we have now -- like I said, particularly if the consumer could get his or her head out of his or her ass.

[efhmc]

46. My own brainwashing is probably what make me frightened but you are

correct, a total free market would certainly be much better than what we live with now. I will have to do some deep thinking on that one.

[pdxblue]

19. in a word, no

we now have corporations that control more wealth than nations, and any politician who maintains that doesn't equate to raw power is a liar.
further you have lawyers and cpa's representing these corporate empires that include the "best and brightest" from our public universities. believe me, these people can run circles around our regulators and enforcers, mr. spitzer notwithstanding.

true democracy and ethical capitalism must be small, decentralized, and community defined. the size of the "community" is open to some question i guess. canada seems to work pretty well, as does sweden, norway, the netherlands.

[efhmc]

23. So it can work, just not here?

[pdxblue]

26. if "corporative capitalism" means what we have here...

it wouldn't work anywhere, because the size and power of corporations overpowers any "checks and balances" we might have.
you can't unring a bell, as they say, and by allowing corporations to grow to the extent that they own and control the media (the propaganda machines), the politicians, the courts, and and the economies of many states and foreign governments...well the bell has been rung.
with that, i have to say that the internet is one of the few bright spots because of the free flow of information, etc. i don't know whether it's possible, but i wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to control that too.

[efhmc]

30. So are we doomed? Is there hope or are we just pawns in the delusional

grip of thinking we might win and always getting close (as a fellower DUer told me) but not ever really making it?

[Cats Against Frist]

44. It could -- but due to television, and the crafty exploits of advertising

we largely have a "national conscious" or "national reality," meaning that there is a national stage for culture, and in a country this big -- that draws WAYYYY too many people into a groupthink homogenozation. Of course, clever corporations know this, and encourage it, because it creates a larger base. Since another important aspect of the consumer impulse is "trend," the more people you have willing to buy your crap, the more people there are who WILL buy your crap.

Unless a national, or even regional company has a brilliant reputation, or I can't get what I need locally, I never shop chain or national brand. The poster was right -- decentralization is the key -- but since it's truly a LOSING strategy for big corporations, it would be met with obstacles -- this is why I've never bought into the GOP "small government," bullshit, because big government and national consciousness encourages the concentration of wealth.

Could it happen? Yeah -- with you and with me. Start tomorrow, and find a local place to buy the things you need, buy local products or organic products in grocery stores, volunteer in your community to do something that gets you to meet your neighbors, and begin a bartering system or something, get involved in local politics.

I've lived in Stockholm, and they take neighborhood political races seriously, and have neighborhood identities -- their neighborhood soccer teams rival each other in professional sports arenas -- and each little suburb has local shops to go to.

So what are you waiting for? People always blame the rich, but it takes two to tango, yeah? One to scrape the pennies together and one to give the pennies.

Of course the UPSIDE of concentration of wealth is R & D -- but we all know that FAR more profit is made for the investor class than is actually pumped into R & D.

Anyway, stuff to think about.

[timtom]

47. Right now, I believe that this is the ONLY way

In addition:

Everybody should immediately get a bicycle and use the car occasionally. Imagine the impact of nullifying the entire campaign for oil control.

[efhmc]

48. Well, personal responsibility is really all we have. I shop organically

and do my part in every way I can to stem the tide of the corporation but I live in a very small town where the biggest employer is Wal-Mart and unless I can and will drive about 80-90 miles to purchase other products, I am stuck. (Of course, I can and do that but many can't and don't.) Others just do not have the time or resources to do this.

[raggedcompany]

27. agreed. the answer is no. n/t

[efhmc]

31. That's it? No hope, no suggestions, no ideas. We are gonners?

[raggedcompany]

63. yep, that's it.

but I'll indulge you:

my hope is that I can get out before it gets too much worse.
my suggestion is that you do the same.
my idea is that they have won, and we are powerless to do anything real about it.
we are goners.

[rman]

55. It's not working here either

"We now have corporations that control more wealth than nations". That is to say national borders are mostly irrelevant to them.
So what makes you think unethical business and false democracy stop at any particular border?

It depends on the politicians really. europe is clearly following the lead of the US wrt total capitalism and its globalization, including the removal of trade barriers such as environmental regulations and unions. It's just that it's not yet as bad here as it is in the US.
The only significant example i can think of where there is decent capitalism and real democracy is Venezuela.

A lot has changed over here in the Netherlands during the past decade or so. We now have a decidedly Right-Wing, religious, pro-Bush government and it doesn't seem to mater much what the people think about that.

[Just Me]

24. Yes. So long as the concept of democracy rules over the pursuits,...

,...of corporative capitalism. However, we are on the brink of losing the priority of fighting to install a democracy (yes,...democracy has never, ever actually been installed,...anywhere,...ever) to another corporate capital rule,...which has always been destructive.

Here's what I don't get,...Americans actually believe that ours is the only attempted form of democracy,...ever in human history.

[efhmc]

32. I am not sure that they believe it is the only attempt. I think most would

say that it is the only one that has worked for any period of time.

[efhmc]

33. Okay posting to my own post to ask about Canada and GB.and

Australia. Aren't they democracies that function with capitalism?

[pdxblue]

34. define your terms

of course capitalism and democracy can co-exist. i didn't take that to be the thrust of your question. the issue is really whether our corporate capitalism, as it has evolved in this country, is compatible with democracy. to that question, i think the answer is no...unless your definition of democracy is different than mine.

[efhmc]

35. You are correct. I am thinking of the current conditions here.

In the US, pure capitalism, which to me is a democratic idea, has been suborn to the greed and monopoly of the corporative environment of the 20-21th century. This mutant capitalism is a entity that sucks the resources and people from our country and leaves nothing in its wake but blight.

[pdxblue]

39. i agree

the next question is what alternatives/options are we left with? i wish i had some good answers

[efhmc]

43. This is where I am always an optimist. I think you will find an answer.

As the saying goes, I do not know you from Adam but I think you and the others here who are bright and resourceful will find a way.

[moondust]

36. Democracy is too unpredictable.

Corporations/markets/investors hate unpredictability. They love the sure thing. Doing away with those unruly, unpredictable democratic methods--or at least controlling them--would be "good for the bottom line and thus the economy."

The CEO of Ford Motor Company (I believe a great grandson of Henry Ford, Nazi sympathizer) recently gave a speech (on C-Span but I was unable to find the transcript) in which he used the phrase "patriotism to the corporation". How quaint! Perhaps we are in a transition period and don't even know it...??

[efhmc]

37. I thought that idea was Japanese? Weren't they (still may be) the

folks who were so completely loyal to the corporation and the American workers were falling behind because of their continued attempts as individualism??

[bhikkhu]

51. Ask the Hawaiians

One of the first countries with a representative native government actually overthrown by a US coporation.

[blueandwhite]

53. yes most corporations are not that bad there are just a few bad eggs

[rman]

54. "just a few bad apples"

So, you didn't seen "The Corporation" www.thecorporation.com

Maybe once it was just a few bad apples, but it didn't get tended to so now it's a whole basket full of bad apples.

[ixat]

58. I haven't heard this point made anywhere,

but when we think about transnational corporations being able to make huge political contributions, isn't it sort of like a person who holds, I dunno, quintuple citizenship in the US, EU, Russia, China, etc etc attempting to influence US domestic/foreign policy by supporting candidates? And shouldn't this be frowned upon as much as foreign citizens trying to funnel campaign cash?

[rman]

62. corporate personhood should be frowned upon

It used to be very very different wrt corporate rights and regulations.
Things were going ok untill corporations started abusing the 14th amendment and judges let them get away with it.

excerpts from
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf
www.reclaimdemocracy.org

"Today, corporations wield immense power over our government, public
lands, even our schools. But this was not the intent of our country’s founders.

In 1776 we declared our independence not only from British rule, but also from the corporations of England that controlled trade and extracted wealth from the U.S. (and other) colonies. Thus, in the early days of our country, we only allowed corporations to be chartered (licensed to operate) to serve explicitly as a tool to gather investment and disperse financial liability in order to provide public goods, such as construction of roads, bridges or canals.
After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations
exclusively to a business role. These state laws,many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.

- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest-- profit for shareholders was the means to that end.

- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.

- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.

- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.

- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."

<snip>

"As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey.
They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority was seeded in the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as “precedent” to hold that a private corporation was a "natural person." This meant that the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, used to grant corporations Constitutional rights. Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise."


"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done." --President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

[ixat]

65. Wait, that sounds familiar...

Wasn't this the narration from the first part of the film "The Corporation"?

A very well-made film, by the way, and one that impressed me very much... however, that was the first time I'd heard the legal status of corporations explained in any detail, and I believe in double-checking my sources.

[ixat]

59. I think that yes, democracy can survive corporations.. (link plz)

provided that their political power is regulated as strictly as that of the 3 traditional branches of government.

All told, I think that today, the greatest challenge before American democracy, and the source of most of our problems, is the skyrocketing complexity of government and life in general. While in the 1700's you could keep up with public life in your spare time, nowadays you need a college degree just to keep track of all the departments. Other than distancing common people from the political process, this also provides an unlimited opportunity for bullshit dissemination by the likes of a certain pudgy middle-aged man with glasses, who shall remain unnamed. Really, how can we expect informed discourse when most people couldn't name the three branches of government? (incidentally, if anyone has any links to studies/polls of Americans' knowledge and awareness of government and the political process in this country, I'd be very interested).