Keith Hudson wrote in reply to Mike Gurstein:
> Despite what you've written above, it is a fact of modern life that the
> corporation is investigated, exposed and pressured as never before. They
> are certainly becoming more democratically accountable in a wider rather
> than a narrower (vote-on-a-ballot paper every few years) sense.
Could you enlighten us on exactly HOW "the corporation is investigated,
exposed and pressured" and what the mechanism of democratic accountability is?
Can you vote a CEO out of office ? (I can't, not even in Switzerland ;-} )
Perhaps you've heard of Walter Wittmann. This ultra-neoliberal economist
proposed the abolition of direct democracy in Switzerland "because it's
bad for business" ! At least he had the frankness to admit that
neoliberalism and real democracy don't mix. Fortunately, Wittmann
emigrated to Canada (unfortunately for Canada) -- he even wrote a book
"Future Canada: Oasis for investors and immigrants" (in German only),
in which he invites other neoliberals to invest in and/or migrate to
Canada. Arthur, Mike et al.: if you ever wondered about all those
Germans buying out your country, now you have a clue.
> I am not mixing up "consumers/stakeholders" with
> "citizens". Modern life has already done that. Each of us is a voter, a
> consumer, a shareholder, a capitalist, a wage-slave, a (potential)
> pensioner, an investor, a speculator, and so on.
So what? Does this mean that voters can influence corporations by voting?
Of course not. Worse, it works the other way 'round: Being shareholders
and wage-slaves etc., voters are stripped of their freedom to vote for
"anti-business" candidates who would be better for society and environment.
(Also, it's untrue that "Each of us is a voter" etc. -- as you point out
below. I for one am almost none of the above, and even in these neoliberal
times, only a minority are shareholders.)
> The fact that citizens are
> voting less than ever before (about 50% in our recent General election*)
> means that he regards his "democratic rights" (in the narrow sense) as less
> important than his other roles.
No, it only means "he" has figured out that marking a cross every 4 years
makes no real difference. That's a pity, but it sure does NOT mean that
this is a good situation. It's a sign of frustration, not of agreement.
On the contrary: The "democratic accountability" is becoming *reversed*:
Nations become "accountable" to corporations -- see Dubya, and see EU:
(following article)
Chris
_______________________Corporations rule the EU_______________________
>Stealing Europe
>
>Neither protesters nor national governments drive the EU: corporations hold
>that power
>
>Special report: European integration
>
>George Monbiot
>Wednesday June 20, 2001
>The Guardian
>
[...]
>If, like Tony Blair, you believe [the Gothenburg protests are] groundless,
>then take a look at a document produced by the the union's most powerful
>lobby group, the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT).
>
>It's called "The east-west win-win business experience", but the title is a
>little misleading.
>
>All the winners appear to live in the west.
>
>European enlargement, the document reveals, provides an opportunity to
>solve the "problems" faced by the ERT's members in central and eastern
>Europe.
>
>New member states can be forced to re duce their taxes, prevent "delays in
>the privatisation process", remove the "restrictions on the purchasing of
>land by foreign companies" and combat the "dominance of national players"
>("national players" are local companies).
>
>Nations seeking to join the union must "ensure that programmes to privatise
>and liberalise local infrastructure continue without delay".
>
>As an example of how the businesses it represents can prosper in eastern
>Europe, the ERT cites the case of British American Tobacco, which has
>"invested" in Hungary.
>
>BAT's problem, the document reports, was that "demand for cigarettes in
>western Europe, the US and other developed markets is highly mature.
>
>Competition is intense and margins are tight.
>
>Growth in profitability and shareholder value must therefore come from
>other, developing markets ...
>
>With the collapse of communism and the gradual emergence of a free market
>economy, central and eastern Europe represents a major growth opportunity
>for BAT."
>
>By buying a cigarette factory in Hungary, BAT was able "to gain access to
>new growth markets, both in Hungary and in other central and eastern
>European countries" and "grow the value of the company".
>
>
>The European Round Table is no ordinary lobby group.
>
>It has little need to call on governments, for governments call on the
>round table.
>
>For the past 17 years it has been the principal architect of European
>integration and expansion.
>
>In April 1983 the chief executive of Volvo brought together the heads of 15
>other corporations, among them ICI, Unilever, Nestle, Philips and Fiat, to
>see if they could find a way of "harmonising" trade rules in western
>Europe.
>
>This, they noted, would allow their companies to reach "the scale necessary
>to resist pressure from non-European competitors".
>
>In January 1985, the ERT presented its proposal to the European commission.
>
>Two months later, the European Council commissioned Lord Cockfield to
>produce the white paper on which the Single European Act would be based. It
>was precisely what the lobbyists ordered.
>
>The round table became the act's enforcer, working closely with the
>commission to ensure that the single European market was completed in 1992.
>
>The ERT, Jacques Delors later noted, was "one of the main driving forces
>behind the single market".
>
>In 1984, the round table published a paper demanding a tunnel under the
>English Channel, a roadbridge connecting Denmark to Sweden, a European high
>speed train system and a new, Europe-wide roadbuilding programme.
>
>It got everything it wanted. In 1987, it started proposing some of the key
>components of European monetary union.
>
>The schedule for enlargement agreed at the European summit in Helsinki in
>1999 precisely mirrors the sequence suggested by the ERT a few years
>before.
>
>In Nice last year European leaders agreed, as the ERT had requested, to
>bypass their national parliaments by handing international treaty-making
>powers to the European commission.
>
> Future trade agreements will be negotiated not by the member states, but
>principally by the trade commissioner, Pascal Lamy.
>
>Mr Lamy is a corporation in human form.
>
>Now the lobby group is seeking what it calls "a minimal regulatory system
>with the maximum of flexibility".
>
> Having harmonised European regulations so that the same big companies can
>sell the same goods and services everywhere, its new task is to diminish
>those common rules, to allow these firms to dump their costs on to the
>environment and other people.
>
>It appears to be winning.
>
>According to its website, "every six months the ERT makes contact with the
>government that holds the EU presidency to discuss priorities".
>
>Its former secretary-general boasted about phoning European leaders
>whenever he wanted policy changes.
>
>
>Thanks in part to Tony Blair's efforts, the EU's proposed "fundamental
>charter on human rights" appears to have been scuppered.
>
>There is now no realistic prospect of harmonising corporate taxes to
>prevent companies from threatening to move to another part of Europe if
>their host nation doesn't reduce its rates.
>
>While the EU still enforces the progressive measures it has adopted in the
>past, its new legislative programme is, in effect, confined to helping big
>business to get bigger.
>
>In Gothenburg Tony Blair insisted that protesters "must not and will not
>disrupt the proper workings of democratic organisations". That role has
>been reserved for corporations.
