I get bothered sometimes when I hear people confuse, or equate, capitalism with democracy. Or socialism with autocracy (dictatorship). Of course, there are numerous examples of such pairings, though even these are highly tainted. For example, in our own supposed democracy, corporations hold much more power over the political system than do individual citizens, and this was recently given a mega-boost with the 'Citizen's United' Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, most corporations are organized in a fashion entirely inimical to democracy, sometimes even excluding union organization and involvement on behalf of employees - to say nothing of their basic internal unelected 'top-down' hierarchies. (If you aren't sure what good unions are, you can thank their blood, sweat, and tears for the eight hour work day - working over which earns you time and a half - the eradication of child labor, and numerous other things we now take for granted. These were fought for, tooth and nail, and wrested from corporations backed by their 'elected' governments, police lackeys, scabs, and hired ruthless thugs.)
The typical employee now has but one choice to express his disaffection with a company: to quit. And with unemployment remaining at record levels, this is not a realistic option. By and large, people have to put up, and
shut up. And then often end up being 'downsized' anyway, their jobs having moved to a country where worker's rights are even more marginalized, if they exist at all. To say nothing of environmental regulations or OSHA type enforcement. Is this democracy?
Well, kinda sorta. It is true there are local, state, and federal opportunities to have an electoral voice (unless you live in the District of Columbia, home of 'taxation without representation'). But that voice - which I encourage us all to exercise - can be rather muted with the private fortunes drowning them out - coming from unelected, unaccountable, and now even anonymous, entities.
(For an example of true workplace democracy you can look at the Mondragon cooperative in Spain's Basque region. A young priest was sent to start a vocational school there, in 1941, and teach Christian values. And some students apparently paid attention, forming their first cooperative in 1959 building kerosene stoves. The co-op has grown over the decades, and now employs over 80,000 in manufacturing and other industries. For more information, you can look here:
http://www.mcc.es/ENG.aspx There are many examples of cooperatives in this country and around the world. Though not a cooperative, United Airlines is technically 'employee-owned,' which is to say, a majority of their shares are in employee's hands. As best I can tell, however, in most respects United operates like any other airline, which is to say, not very democratically. Michael Moore, in his movie
Capitalism, A Love Story, cites various employee-owned and democratic cooperatives as an alternative to capitalism. There are many critics who claim this is a simplistic view, and that basically if the larger system is set up to police and enforce the private unfair distribution of capital - while not providing much along the lines of Social Security, public health insurance, robust educational systems, etc. - such co-ops can have only a small impact. For more such analysis, you can check out sites like this:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/are-worker-owned-companies-an-alterative-to-capitalism/http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/are-worker-owned-companies-an-alterative-to-capitalism/)
There are hybrid political-economic systems. China only embraced capitalism in the 1980's, but is more autocratic by far than democratic - both within factories, and within government. Is it a communist country now that it is one of the emerging economic superpowers? Again, kinda sorta. What it clearly is not, is democratic, on
any level. Could it be, and still be called communist? Of course. Can it be called capitalist? On many levels it competes as a capitalist nation, buying a few and selling a lot of goods in 'free markets' worldwide, even though its own markets are far from free.
Try a thought experiment: Say the Chinese government still owns and controls all the land, factories, etc. (Marx's 'means of production'), but it also allows free and fair elections (even in Tibet - but
sorry, that's another sticky issue entirely...). And the government so elected might choose to insist, for example, that factories pay their employees a living wage. And not hire younger than a given age (do I hear fifteen? Sixteen?
Eighteen?). And not allow toxic emissions from smokestacks or effluent pipes into rivers, etc. And pay for the health care and retirement of their workers. Would they still be communist? For the purposes of this thought experiment, yes, the 'means of production' owned by the government, that is, the people. Would they be able to sell off their state-owned property to the highest bidder, like Russia did in the nineties? Of course. Would they still be 'communist'? Less so. This is the story of Russia today - having emerged after the soviet union collapsed - which is now basically crony capitalism with a phony democracy. Our thought experiment China might look more along the lines of many western European 'social democracies.'
If all this seems confusing (coming as it does from the dendritic kudzu of my brain) let me try to clarify and probably make it all murkier. Spain under generalissimo Franco: 0% democracy, 100% crony capitalism. (Side note: 'crony capitalism' means simply that friends and family of the powerful in government end up with all of the 'means of production' and therefore the wealth and power of a nation. Normally it does not encourage - or even
allow - free markets, which are necessary for capitalism to flourish. Another side note: the Mondragon cooperative mentioned earlier was started under this Spanish dictatorship.) Germany: democratic
and capitalist, though with a robust legal framework which puts limits and hefty taxes on corporations, and upholds workers' rights to unionize, strike, etc. It generally has found a healthy balance, and I believe this is one of the reasons it is Europe's most successful economy. North Korea: 100% of what I would call crony communism, 100% autocracy, 0% capitalism, 0% democracy. Could they benefit from some capitalism, or more precisely, some free enterprise? Sure. But more to the point, they could use a big dose of democracy.
Which I think we could all use more of. And lately, with the 'Arab spring' some nations are attempting to head that way. But what a precarious journey it is proving to be so far. In the U.S., the 'occupy movement' is trying to head us in a fairer, more just, and more democratic direction. Their message has been a bit murky so far, but seems to be congealing around dismantling the 'Citizens United' case.
As long as corporations are allowed to spend unlimited money, protected as 'free speech,' the chances of reversing the past thirty years of stagnating wages, plummeting union membership (down to 7% in the private sector), soaring profits for shareholders, and an ever widening wealth gap between the rich and poor - which is many times as extreme among minority groups - are somewhere between zip and nil. Which, again, is the kind of long-winded sentence I'm susceptible to but which boils down to: reverse 'Citizens United' now!
Right now!
Which is of course, something of a 'no-brainer.' Will we work for or contribute to a candidate for elected office whose campaign is funded largely by these anonymous entities protected by Citizens United? If so, I posit we may reap just what we sow. Or reap more of the manure we put on the crops (to push a metaphor to thee limit of its utility). I have to hand it to the OWS folks, and am happy to see the discussion they have generated has tilted public debate to the very core issues of what this country could be. What promises it truly holds.
Clouds, drizzle, and sun are vying for preeminence this day - literally - which given the scope of this post, puts me in the mind of a song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScfUfsUlGro
