FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Alternative Futures

There is no alternative. Capitalism is the only future. Free markets are the essence of democracy.

How do we know? Because we are told repeatedly by smart guys from corporations and government, and by the journalists and academics paid to explain why the smart guys are right.

In the face of that “consensus,” the folks at the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) have launched a direct attack on the nature of the corporation, the institution at the core of modern capitalism.

So, are they crazy or just confused?

Neither. The POCLAD members are refreshingly clear, and the book of their writings — Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy — makes a compelling case for their analysis and strategy.

The key is that their critique is of the nature of the corporation. They are not simply saying that corporations do bad things or sometimes distort democracy (most liberals and even some conservatives admit that, especially post-Enron). Instead, they argue that the rise of the contemporary corporation has been the death of meaningful democracy. While I think their analysis needs to broaden (more on that later), the POCLAD collective has done an important service by framing the issue of economic justice in a language accessible to people not yet persuaded by a left/progressive analysis.

Here’s the story POCLAD tells:

Our wealthy founding father devised a system that allowed them to maintain power — by restricting citizenship to propertied white men, and through elite-controlled institutions such as the U.S. Senate and Supreme Court that could corral any wild ideas that regular people might pursue through the relatively more democratic House of Representatives, or state and local governments. Still, the democratic principles on which the country was founded were real, and popular movements over time expanded the franchise and agitated for more democracy.

At the same time those battles have been going on, lawyers and lobbyists have waged a war to expand corporate power. Often relying on judges to do what even well-lobbied legislatures wouldn’t, corporations went from being limited entities in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries that could be controlled by the people and their representatives, to today’s concentrations of wealth and power that have almost completely escaped popular control.

In POCLAD language, corporations began as entities subordinate to the sovereign people but eventually became masters, eroding the core concept of democracy — power resides in We the People. Key to this was the courts’ granting to corporations the rights of persons, including 14th Amendment rights and eventually even free speech rights. POCLAD points out the obvious: Rights can be claimed only by persons, and corporations aren’t real persons but only fictional ones, creations under law.

According to POCLAD, we should move beyond fighting corporations on their terms — battling to control the worst of their offenses through regulatory law or asking them to curb abuses through voluntary codes of conduct. Instead, citizen-activists should demand that corporations act responsibly in accord with their charters or face charter revocation, the death penalty for corporations.

Along the way, POCLAD retells some American history, with two main effects. First, it denaturalizes the corporation — and by implication capitalism — showing that like any other system it is the product of human choices, not some unchangeable natural order. Second, POCLAD members remind us of past resistance to corporations — from the first half of America’s history when corporations were kept on a much shorter leash and such revocations occurred, to the Populists’ activism in the late 19th century contesting the legitimacy of corporations, to the work of the early labor movement to articulate an alternative to capitalism. For progressive political change to be possible, people not only have to understand the nature of the systems and institutions that wield power, but also see that it is possible for systems to change.

The book points out that corporations do not simply engage in business but govern much of our lives, in a system that disadvantages natural persons doing battle with these fictional persons. Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy makes this point particularly well in discussing labor law, which gives management huge advantages over workers trying to organize. The authors also argue cogently that whatever short-term victories citizens and environmental groups have won, or can win, in regulatory agencies, the ecological health of the planet has deteriorated, and will continue to deteriorate. So long as corporations can accumulate the wealth and power that contemporary law and politics allows, progressive activists start out in a hole.

As these letters, essays, and speeches (all short and easy to digest) lay out this case, it becomes clear quickly the POCLAD folks have made the strategic choice to focus on corporations and avoid using the word “capitalism.” That decision makes sense in a country where critiques of capitalism typically are associated with foreign ideologies (European or Third-World socialism and communism) and totalitarian systems (the Soviet Union and its satellites). While it is true that spirited critiques of capitalism are a homegrown part of American history (some are referenced in the book, such as the Knights of Labor’s) and not foreign imports, at this moment in history a strategy that focuses on the corporation is likely to resonate more with Americans. No matter what people think about capitalism as a system (if they think about it at all), virtually everyone has some reason to dislike or distrust corporations; we’ve all been screwed by a corporation — as a competitor, employee, consumer, or bystander — in some fashion at some point.

Given that corporations and modern capitalism can’t be separated or separately defined, POCLAD’s critique of the corporation goes to the heart of the system. It is possible to highlight the key problems inherent in capitalism — its need for constant expansion, the exploitation of workers, the commodification of everything — by focusing on corporations. Indeed, capitalism as we know it couldn’t exist without the corporate form. Still, at some point in discussion about politics and economics, people understandably ask, “OK, you don’t like what we’ve got — what kind of system do you want?”

Do left/progressive folks answer by saying we want capitalism without corporations? Or capitalism with corporations that just have less power? It’s not clear what the first claim would mean, nor is it obvious the second would bring substantive improvements.

Or do we articulate a vision that — whether or not we use the term — will sound a lot like what traditionally has been known as socialism: no private ownership of the means of production, worker control over production, collective/council structures throughout the economy, participatory planning, etc. Such a system can go by other names; for example, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel call it “participatory economics” (see their book Looking Forward or the web site <www.parecon.org>). But in the end, it’s not unreasonable for people to expect an answer to that question.

One might argue that the first step is to delegitimize the corporation, exposing not only the way it corrupts democracy in the political sphere but crushes people in the private. No argument there, but that first step quickly leads to questions about vision for an alternative system. This is not a demand for an alternative defined in great detail, which usually is a tactic to derail criticism of the existing system. Indeed, when any system is oppressive, it is in some sense enough to demand that the system end. But the effectiveness of that demand is much enhanced by a clear articulation of the underlying principles (which POCLAD offers) and some discussion of that vision, even if tentative and sketchy (which isn’t included in this volume).

Another necessary step forward is to include a more specific accounting of racism, sexism, and U.S. imperialism — not as issues separate from corporate capitalism but intricately bound up with it. It is clear POCLAD wants to keep its eye on the prize of contesting corporate power, but expanding the analysis can aid in that task.

In one sense, capitalism is not inherently racist or sexist — corporations are happy to exploit anyone in the drive for profit. But owners and managers have used racism to divide workers and solidify control, and sexism has been important in keeping certain jobs associated with women or “women’s work” (such as the expanding customer service sector) low paying. Those stories are also an integral part of the history of the corporation.

It’s also imperative, as the American empire seeks even greater domination of the world, to link the corporate system to U.S. foreign policy and militarism. At a time when expressions of patriotism run high, this may seem risky. But it’s difficult to imagine making inroads against the corporate power at home without challenging the brutality and violence of U.S. policy as it secures resources and markets abroad for corporations.

These are issues that left/progressive movements have to hash out. In a world of multiple systems of repression and oppression that are enmeshed, we have no choice but to deal with them analytically. One person or group can decide to focus on a particular issue, but the analysis that underlies that political action can’t ignore this complexity.

Whatever differences in strategy and emphasis I might have with POCLAD, Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy reminds us that this kind of political work can be done in a language that speaks to ordinary people. POCLAD avoids long, jargon-filled writing that will turn off most readers, and that’s all to the good. But too many of these short, to-the-point pieces repeat the same themes, sometimes in pretty much the same language. The book could have been cut in half and conveyed as much information, making it more effective for outreach tool to the general public.

Still, leftists and progressives should read Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy — and keep up with the group’s work through the website (<www.poclad.org>) and newsletter (By What Authority) — not only for the history and analysis it offers but for rhetorical strategies for taking the message to the public. POCLAD reminds us the task is not to convince policymakers and elites of the problem of corporations but to reach the public and build a mass movement.

At a time when most people accept the big lie that there is no future outside of capitalism, it’s time to move forward with political strategies grounded in the recognition that there is no way to think about a decent future except outside of capitalism.

Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, a member of the Nowar Collective, and author of the book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. His pamphlet, “Citizens of the Empire.

He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu

 

More articles by:

Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men. He can be reached atrjensen@austin.utexas.edu or online at http://robertwjensen.org/.

September 19, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid
Lawrence Davidson
Political Fragmentation on the Homefront
George Ochenski
How’s That “Chinese Hoax” Treating You, Mr. President?
Cesar Chelala
The Afghan Morass
Chris Wright
Three Cheers for the Decline of the Middle Class
Howard Lisnoff
The Beat Goes On Against Protest in Saudi Arabia
Nomi Prins 
The Donald in Wonderland: Down the Financial Rabbit Hole With Trump
Jack Rasmus
On the 10th Anniversary of Lehman Brothers 2008: Can ‘IT’ Happen Again?
Richard Schuberth
Make Them Suffer Too
Geoff Beckman
Kavanaugh in Extremis
Jonathan Engel
Rather Than Mining in Irreplaceable Wilderness, Why Can’t We Mine Landfills?
Binoy Kampmark
Needled Strawberries: Food Terrorism Down Under
Michael McCaffrey
A Curious Case of Mysterious Attacks, Microwave Weapons and Media Manipulation
Elliot Sperber
Eating the Constitution
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail