Home | About | Donate

We Never Voted for Corporate Rule


We Never Voted for Corporate Rule

David Korten

This column is the second part of a series. To read Part One, click here.


Any person that supports the current economic system that allows for wealth inequality and private individuals being in control of the means of production ultimately has voted in favor of Corporate rules because that is where such a system leads.

Capitalism and true Democracy, can not co-exist as the power of money will always overwhelm the power of the vote. This because as an individual we only have one vote while at the same time an individual can have billions of dollars to another persons NONE.

The truest forms of democracy , that where one persons vote and individual voice was equal to the next persons , existed only in societies where there little wealth inequality such as those the Europeans encountered and ruthlessly crushed in nations they colonized. POWER does not care what the "little people" think.


Your last paragraph is a profound insight, that gets right to the heart of the matter.


Thank you, David Korten, for bringing sovereignty into the discussion. When I first recognized that globalization, along with its associated "free-trade 'agreements' (dictates?)", was essentially a migration of sovereignty from nation-states to the multinational corporations it became much clearer just what humanity was up against. This has been going on a long time, perhaps best characterized by a certain banking family playing both sides of the Napoleonic wars.


Excellent efficient summary of the current state of affairs - which long ago Marx anticipated too. Looking forward to reading Korten's thoughts on ways out of this order - with in mind Chomsky's thoughts in his book on Anarchy. And BRussell's on that topic too.


We can still act individually, and for the time being, blog about it.

Are you an investor? Why is that?

Do you live in a suburban home? Why is that?

If you are secure and well off - how can you relate to people who are neither?

Is the goal for everybody to be rich - which is unsustainable - or for everybody to be poor, which is possible?

How poor?

Bolivia has an expression - bien vivir - to live well - in the sense of enough but not more.

Is this the goal?


"We Never Voted for Corporate Rule", but you did!

Electing conservatives over the past 30 years has created corporate rule.


How can anybody say with a straight face that "we never voted for corporate rule" when 98% of US voters voted for the corporate Democrat or corporate GOP candidate in 2012 while 6 much more qualified third party candidates recieved only 2% of the vote combined ?

The 2012 election stats were not an outlier, just additional proof that most Murkins either don't have a clue when it comes to corporate control or support it.


My bet is on "neither", mainly because of the almost total control by the oligarchy of the major parties and the MSM. Here at CD we deride the MSM, but the MSM is THE source of information for the vast majority of American citizens. Do we really expect the oligarchs, who control the MSM, to even mention the issue of corporate control of the world, much less report on the true consequences of such "trade" deals as NAFTA, TTIP or TPP? How much mention of Jill Stein has there been on any of the MSM outlets? Bernie Sanders was demonized in what finally turned out to be a successful effort to marginalize his campaign, in cahoots with the DLC and DNC. Our system is not much different than what existed in Stalinist Russia, where people voted for one or another hand-picked communist candidates in a tightly controlled electoral landscape, accompanied by state-sponsored propaganda. Here, the oligarchs have bought both major parties and control their propaganda arms, the state-sanctioned stenographers of the MSM. The swift acceptance of a socialist as a national candidate for the presidency, a candidacy that needed to be crushed by the political machinations of the DLC, DNC and MSM, belies the notion that American citizens do not know that they are being screwed by the "elite" or that they support corporate control of everything. What we are denied is information about alternatives such as Jill Stein, and presented instead with the prospect of an actual deranged maniac attaining the presidency, making the madness of a war-soaked harpy seem tame by comparison. Information is the key, and the oligarchs control the major outlets of the information we need to function as a democracy.


You miss the author's point. For further insight you might consider "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky. A place to start.


So your point is that corporations just waste so much time and effort rigging the game, when their real motives and efforts would be embraced anyway.


When journalism is stopped as it is with the MSM Democracy cannot live. If citizens are uninformed they vote against their own interests as we see today.


Recall SCOTUS justice Louis Brandeis' admonition a century ago: "we can have democracy, or we can have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we can't have both". Corporate control of government has resulted in and will continue to expand wealth transfer from the 99% to the 1% with the 1% ultimately owning everything and the 99% owning nothing...neofeudalism in a nutshell.


A recipe for temptation and blackmail.


Voting is much more than merely pulling a lever (an outdated reference for sure, but adequate for the purpose of the argument). The physical act of pulling the lever is just the last step in a process that involves being informed about who and what we are voting for. American citizens are positively mis-informed about who and what we are voting for. If voting in a true democracy implies knowledge and consent, we are not really voting just by our final act of pulling the lever. We are perhaps the most heavily propagandized nation on this earth, where the vast majority of citizens get their information from the same corporate sources that want to control the world and who own our government and decide who and what we are voting for. "Consent" for policies with which we do not agree has been manufactured by propaganda, and, as in this election, we are ultimately presented with the fait accompli of candidates who represent the views of practically nobody. The point you try to make presumes that we live in a functioning democracy, where our votes are the last act in a process where we have been truly informed about our choices. That is simply not the case in this country. The fierce resistance to TTIP and TPP is the result of real information finally getting to the people. Prior to the leaks of what these deals really mean, they were negotiated in secret and were being readied to be crammed down our throats. Obama's efforts at having the lame duck congress make the vote on these deals is the final evidence that they MUST be crammed down our throats in the absence of our consent. No, we did not vote for corporate control of our lives, in that our votes were not truly informed and therefore did not imply our consent.


See Kakistocrat's response. I fully agree.


Thanks for your excellent post, and saving me the time and energy to respond myself.


That's my job. :wink:


Yes! Manufactured consent should come with full moneyback warranty. False Informing via hack media infotainers is not easily discerned by a public educated in criminally underfunded, understaffed, poorly resourced, often blindered classist administrators who smile with gracious condescension upon curiculum that leaves most of the publicly educated believing that the business community knows best what the curriculum should be. That is to say, critical thinking for participatory democracy is deliberately left out...to prevent graduates from thinking that working people do actually have a voice in REAL democracies. Most school district administrations have much too cozy relations with the business community and our graduates pay the price for it by believing profit is the deepest spiritual aspiration for Americans everywhere. To hell with ethics, the Earth, you can name almost anything else.......


This goes to the heart of the most important issue of our time. Prior to the obvious error of Citizens United and a few related cases, as a legal matter corporations were understood to be creatures of the state, designed to allow collective economic enterprises a vehicle for operating. They were never intended to be "people", with "rights", as our current extremist right wing court has decreed.

In fact, even today, all corporations are subject to the restrictions of the laws in the state in which they are incorporated. So, state legislatures could easily, and legally, re-frame their corporate existence to require them to act in the public interest, to never act in contravention of the environment, to be burdened with a fiduciary duty to the public and any other constraints necessary to prevent them from inflicting the harm they currently impose on all of us. State legislators, not Congress, are the root of this power and are the place where these reforms can take place. Of course, Congress could preempt the states and impose these duties. But therein lies a problem, the problem we collectively know as Citizens United.