Keith Hudson wrote:
> (CR)
> >You must have missed the point that democracy means that those who are
> >_affected_ of decisions, have a say in these decisions (and in *electing*
> >those who directly make decisions that affect them). But in corporations,
> >that's a *different* crowd (even if you assume that there is democracy among
> >shareholders, pensioners, media etc., which is also very doubtful):
> >Non-customers and employees are affected of corporate decisions, but have
> >no say in them; and OTOH, those who have a say, are least affected of
> >their (negative) consequences. That's not democracy at all.
>
> You are falling back to a simplistic definition of democracy. It is a lot
> more subtle than that in modern times.
It isn't more subtle but more deceitful in modern times. What passes for
democracy with the likes of Dubya (unelected president!) is actually
corporate feudalism.
> (CR)
> >To repeat the questions you have overlooked:
> >
> >> > Regarding public pressure: what sanctions would the public
> >> > have had if the [Railtrack] CEO had insisted on his bonus &options ?
> >> > To change to a foreign railway company? <G>
>
> They would not have returned to the railways so quickly.
Absurd -- you want millions of people to drive instead of taking a train,
just to send a signal to a greedy CEO !? That's a social and environmental
desaster, not democracy.
> (CR)
> >> > And in most cases of corporate
> >> > misbehavior (external costs, environmental and social), the customers
> >> > even have a vested INTEREST in the misbehavior, as it makes the products
> >> > cheaper for them ! There, the NON-customers would have to put pressure
> >> > on the corporation, but how should they do this ?
>
> The trend-setters in modern consumer practice are middle-class people and
> they are increasingly willing to pay more for "Fair Trade", organic produce
> and the like.
This middle-class is a small segment that is getting smaller due to
neoliberalism, and "voting with the wallet" only works in very limited
and indirect ways, much less effective than directly affecting regulatory
changes.
>(CR)
> >> > 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 ?
>
> The newspapers are a powerful method of exercising pressure on politicians
> and business people. Remember, it brought down an American President
> (Nixon) and can certainly expose malpractice of a corporation.
It is pretty telling that you mention a NON-corporate example: President
Nixon wasn't exactly CEO of "USA Inc.", was he? That's the point!
Can you find an example where a CEO was replaced (or a corporation
forced to change its behavior) by press pressure ? Even if you can:
The corporate press is a very poor substitute for public control --
it can't be expected to be impartial and decent. Reality shows over
and over again that this doesn't work anywhere near sufficiently.
> (CR)
> >I'd be surprised if you can answer these questions satisfactorily, since
> >even neoliberals like Wittmann admit that neoliberalism and democracy don't
> >mix... (I can also see that in daily practice here in Switzerland)
>
> Well, I'm trying as rationally as I can. But I don't think I'll succeed.
Not rationally enough -- also in your other message ("Re: Solar Power"):
> All right, let's discuss Realpolitik. Bush won't accept the Kyoto proposals
> because he knows he will meet point-blank resistance from Congress. (This
> is known as democracy.) Congress won't accept the need for the Kyoto
> proposals because it knows that it will meet point-blank resistance from
> the American electorate. (This is also known as democracy.) The American
> electorate will refuse to contemplate the need for the Kyoto proposals
> while there are still eminent climatologists who say that we have
> insufficient evidence of the man-made causes of recent climate changes --
> indeed, that the recent climate changes are nothing extraordinary in the
> history of the earth. (This is also known as democracy.)
This shows once more that you confuse corporate feudalism with democracy.
Let's sort this out:
Before you praise Bush as a big democrat, keep in mind that he wasn't
elected. He was Selected by the Supreme Court (by Republican-selected
judges). He listens to the corporations that paid his election campaign.
So do most Congressmen. The American electorate is (dis)informed by a
corporate press that makes a mockery out of your claim that the press
will save the day by controlling and pressuring the corporations.
A democracy where decisions are based on disinformation isn't democracy.
Finally, from a global perspective, the USA is one of a very few "CO2-
rogue states" (4.5% of the world population, emitting 25% of world emissions)
that oppose the Kyoto treaty. By democratic criteria, these few have to
accept the global majority in favor of CO2 reductions. It is inacceptable
that a few rogue states destroy the global climate.
Chris
