Christoph,
I shan't be replying to any of your messages again. You don't understand
the difference between reasoned discussion (however vigorous) and
name-calling. I'm aware that there's probably a culture difference between
the Swiss and the rest of the world, but your aggressiveness goes beyond
anything I want to bother with.
Keith Hudson
At 15:18 17/07/01 +0200, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
