It’s Not the S-Word, It’s the P-Word

There are two major human-made powers in the modern world: governments and corporations. Ostensibly, the role of government is to protect its citizens. To do so, it must be large enough to cover the many issues that threaten harm or which diminish the quality of life for its people. When it fails to protect, when it fails to bring about a certain minimum living standard for those it governs, it must be reformed or overthrown. If the government operates in a democracy, reform can be achieved through discussion, debate and ultimately by voting. If that doesn’t work, and all other peaceful methods have been exhausted, revolution may be justified.

Ostensibly the role of corporations is to satisfy its shareholders. In a capitalist economy that means maximizing profits. History bears out the fact that this role is often at the expense of citizens, since corporations are not beholden to them. They are not beholden to them because that is not their raison d'être. Since corporate leaders are not elected officials, the citizens who suffer from their decisions cannot appeal to them directly. More often than not they don’t even know who is responsible.

Historically, when corporate exploitation and abuse rose to a certain intolerable level, the other power – the government – stepped in. This stepping in effectively clipped the wings of such corporate maneuverings. Since corporations in this country operate in a democracy and since they must always contend with this other power, they were compelled to resort to subtler ways to exploit citizens, pushing up against the law but not transgressing it. But sooner or later their pushing went too far – their subtly was exposed and consequently opposed – and the government was compelled to step in again to curtail this new display of corporate power.

Thus we see the trend. Governments grow because corporations exploit more and more. The latter is responsible for the former’s far-reaching influence. If corporations behaved, the need to micro-manage, the need to come up with countless programs to protect citizens from capitalistic excesses would be unnecessary, and government would be proportionally smaller and less intrusive.

If government did not provide a safety net for its citizens, quite literally millions would simply be blown off the face of the Earth. Interestingly enough, such a pandemic would cause the culprits – the corporate elites – to suffer too. This is due to the law of parasitic behavior: if one is compelled to take and take and take until the host dies, this activity ultimately kills the parasite as well.

Since, as we have seen, the only entity powerful enough to prevent corporations from all out abuse is the government, it became incumbent upon corporate leaders to attempt to control government. Thus we now see billions of corporate dollars poured into the election process. Take a moment and ask yourself, why should the Koch brothers be interested in seeing that a particular Governor or Supreme Court Justice gets elected in Wisconsin? Answer: it is in their interest to do so. This clearly shows that corporations tacitly acknowledge the superior power of government.  They know that government can affect their profits and so they stop at nothing to control government.

That’s the state of affairs today. The two powers which were formerly opposed are becoming one, more and more, with each election as mayors, governors, senators, and judges are associated to a greater and greater degree with the lobbyists who got them elected. As this becomes widespread, the role of government to protect its citizens is only ostensible. In reality, it endeavors to promote the interests of corporations. This is a major problem because corporate interests are almost always at odds with citizen interests.

One massive power means those in control of it can pursue their goals unchecked by any democratic process. In fact, the democratic process becomes a joke, a ruse, to keep the rabble – the citizens – thinking they do have a voice in determining what kind of world they live in. But the public is not buying it, as evidenced by the abysmal voter turn-out.

With all this in mind, let’s briefly consider the debate between socialism and the free-market.

Those who advocate the so-called free market do so in the name of freedom: the freedom to buy and sell as one sees fit. This is the basic philosophy of the Right and especially the Tea Party constituency of conservative ideology. Nothing should stand in the way of this freedom, and these people argue that socialism takes freedom away.

And they are right. But it should be pointed out that it does so for the citizens; it does so in order that we all have a decent standard of living. And when that occurs, we all have the same amount of freedom. In other words, it is egalitarian all the way: the same freedoms, the same opportunities for all. A strong socialist state should be equated with a strong protective role of government to meet the needs of its citizens across the board, uninfluenced by corporate shenanigans.

What the Tea Party fails to mention is the way capitalism takes freedom away. For it forces people to make choices they would rather not make, e.g. taking on a second job, shopping at Wal-Mart, working at a company only for economic reasons, coming out of retirement to make ends meet, throwing kids in daycare because both parents have to work, etc., etc. Again, this is because capitalism operates not for the citizens, but for a few corporate elites, and strictly to maximize profits for these elites.

Now, unless you are an anarchist you should understand that in the modern world one must give up some freedom in order to live safely, harmoniously – fairly. But given the two choices, which are associated with two very different p-words, it seems obvious which one is most beneficial to the average citizen.

Photo by PeoplesWorld.org