Democrats: corporatocracy or democracy ... it's time to choose

[welshTerrier2]

We like to believe we are living in a democracy or a "republic" as republicans seem so quick to point out and we argue ad nauseum on DU about "the left" and what exactly it means ...

well, ultimately, i think left-center labels are nonsense ... i identify with "the left" because i see that the country needs radical reform ... why this means "left" is anybody's guess ...

whether you are left or center, you should see that we have lost our democracy ... our government is now totally controlled by corporations ... is this kind of thinking "left"??? do centrists not believe this has happened???

i'm currently reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ... it should be required reading for all DU'ers ... frankly, there IS NO OTHER ISSUE ... that's right, nothing else matters ... why, you ask? because our government acts only in the interests of the super-wealthy and the corporations they control ... without real citizen power, all gains are illusory ... they are provided only to quiet or distract the masses ... and just as quickly as they are given, so can they be taken away ...

in today's headlines, here is yet another shining example of the total corruption of our institutions ... even when life and death clearly hang in the balance, corporate profits control the setting of policy ... if the Democratic Party doesn't "get this", they are totally irrelevant ... if they don't fight to restore our democracy, it will ultimately not matter which Party is in power ... it is time for Democrats to set "restoring our democracy" at the core of the Democratic platform ... all other "values" are secondary ...

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html?pagewanted=2 (free registration required)

Ten of the 32 government drug advisers who last week endorsed continued marketing of the huge-selling pain pills Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx have consulted in recent years for the drugs' makers, according to disclosures in medical journals and other public records.

If the 10 advisers had not cast their votes, the committee would have voted 12 to 8 that Bextra should be withdrawn and 14 to 8 that Vioxx should not return to the market. The 10 advisers with company ties voted 9 to 1 to keep Bextra on the market and 9 to 1 for Vioxx's return.<skip>

But the committee took nine votes, three for each drug, on whether Celebrex, Bextra or Vioxx hurt the heart, should continue to be marketed and, if so, under what restrictions. These votes were deeply important to the three companies - Merck, Pfizer and Novartis - that came before the committee. Indeed, shares of Merck and Pfizer soared last Friday after the panel's votes.<skip>

Of the 30 votes cast by the 10 panel members on whether Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx should continue to be marketed, 28 favored the drugs. Among the 66 votes cast by the remaining 22 members of the panel, just 37 favored the drugs.<skip>

still not convinced? try this one:

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0225-09.htm

Eleven days after the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming entered into force despite the opposition of the Bush administration, another international treaty, this one on tobacco, will take effect Sunday without U.S. ratification.<skip>

Although Washington signed the FCTC last May, the move was met with skepticism from public-health activists who charged that Washington consistently took positions during its negotiation similar to those put forward by the tobacco industry in order to weaken the treaty.<skip>

[cestpaspossible]

1. Ending corporate personhood is the key

and it will be a multigenerational struggle.

[jen4clark]

2. Thank you for starting this thread!!

This is an old article from Global Exchange - we need to realize, as you said, this is the ultimate battle facing us. Many have been engaged in this for a long time - it's time we all join forces against the ultimate enemy of "we the people"!

Controlling corporations and democratizing the world economy

Once upon a time, people believed in the divine right of kings. It was generally accepted that the son or daughter of the King and Queen would be the next ruler.

When "radicals" started pushing the idea that the people should select who governs them, these heretics were at first scorned. But as mass education spread, more and more people realized that it is far more sensible to have the people choose their leaders than to leave it to heredity.

The history of democratic governance is a history of this principle gradually spreading to more of the world's population. At first, it was only wealthy males who were allowed to vote. Gradually the franchise was extended to the excluded groups (e.g., women and ex-slaves) as the principle of universal political rights sunk its roots into civic culture.

Now we are in the early stages of a global revolution that could make previous democratic revolutions look like mere warm-ups for the real contest. All across the planet, people are beginning to see through a big myth: that the world is divided neatly into a political realm (where democracy is accept able) and an economic realm (where dictatorship by the rich prevails). In various ways and in many different cultures, people are expanding the definition of democracy by asserting their rights to control the activity of corporations.

The struggle to democratize the economy has grown more urgent as global corporations have greatly expanded their power and shown that they cannot be trusted to provide , decent jobs or protect the environment.

Within the movement to democratize the economy there is a key problem: there are many fingers and no fist. Most groups working to democratize corporations are employing a particular tactic (e.g., boycotts, shareholder resolutions, challenging corporate charters), or they focus on a particular corporation or industry, or they are limited to a particular country or region. We need to figure out how to unify these many efforts, so the power of our numbers will be felt by those who own most of the wealth and exert so much undue control over our lives and the life of the planet.

<snip>

Conclusion

The ultimate goal of all this activity is not just better behavior by those in power. We want to change the rules of the game so the system will equalize wealth globally, rather than creating greater inequality as is currently the case. If we can unify the movement and increase the size and sophistication of our efforts, we will be able to democratize the economy and bring corporations under control. See the back side of this page for specific ways you can get involved.

What can be done?
There are many good organizations working to democratize aspects of the global economy. Here are some areas of reform and groups that deserve your support:


http://tinyurl.com/5un2n

[welshTerrier2]

4. fantastic article... thanks ...

i strongly agree with it except for one subtle, but extremely important point ... the article said we should "equalize wealth globally" ... many believe in an economic system, using a somewhat libertarian view, that does not impose stringent rules on the freedom to seek wealth ... advocating economic equality often is alienating to people who have been indoctrinated this way ...

we need not necessarily seek equality of wealth ... a better approach, or at least a more politically pragmatic first step, would be to ban wealth that can sufficiently corrupt democratic institutions ... when a person, or a corporation, becomes wealthy enough and powerful enough to buy government favors, that is too much wealth ... all of this wealth must be taken, or prevented, by the State ...

one might well lose the argument that seeks equality of wealth regardless of skill or effort expended to achieve it ... some believe "fair" competition should produce winners and losers ... some will do well and others will do poorly ... they argue that IF the system is fair, equality is not a valid objective ... i would take issue with the article you posted because it values economic equality and may not be politically viable because of that position ...

again, the goal should be democracy, not economic equality ... even those who might condone economic disparity that results from a level playing field should not object to blocking the interference of wealth in our democratic institutions ... some, as a first step, absent any control on wealth, seek to address issues like campaign finance reform and paid lobbyists ... the reality is that these measures cannot ever be successful when one understands that corporate control is absolute ... any toying with bureacratic regulations will not ultimately provide the remedy sought ... but i support these efforts as a first step to appease those hesitant to take the more draconian steps of "de-capitating" (i.e. removing the top x% of their wealth) the super-wealthy ... let us be able to state that we did all we could do before acting more harshly to impose the restrictions we believe are ultimately needed ...

the article you posted was fantastic ... still, i believe the above points about economic equality need to be more flexible if we are to succeed ...

[jen4clark]

5. you're right

I guess I was so excited reading the different ways to directly impact corporations - Cross-border worker solidarity, comsumer boycotts, challenging and changing the corporate charters, etc. - that I didn't really absorb the broader meaning of the conclusion. I believe these are excellent places to focus and are issues that most people, no matter what their political persuasion could understand and get behind. The divide would be more of a class division I imagine, although it seems that the regressive red staters are all too willing to vote against their own economic well-being - so what do I know... lol!

We're so far down right now that any steps we can take are urgently necessary. Like you said, these can be the first steps on the long road that will hopefully gather momentum, strengthen our numbers and get us on the road to taking the power out of their hands and back to ours!!

One of the most frustrating parts of where we are right now is our loss of a free press. It's like we're living in his little alternate reality that only we know about. I sometimes get really scared when my computer screws up because I feel so totally alone and separate from the mainstream world that is shoved down our throats on the corporate news channels and in most of the newspapers.

I know DNC Chairman is not a particularly influencial position as far as policies but I do hope Dr. Dean will be with us on this. I also have hopes that he'll address our fraudulent voting system. He personally saw how easy it is to hack into the vote tabulating machine. He KNOWS! He truly doesn't seem to be part of the "insiders" power elite and neither is General Clark. If the two of them would join forces with the handful of other uncorrupt leaders we've got, we could actually have some powerful influence leading the way!

Well, I've rambled right off topic... but is IS so all connected. I just wonder how bad it has to get before people start waking up?

[me b zola]

3. kick