Citizens United to Create Conflict with Corporate Power for the Purpose of Constructive Change

One purpose for the previous blog entry is to provide a small discussion on a framework (also referred to as a lens, a perspective, a worldview, a thought process) to constructively direct imagination, skills, energies, and passions toward complex, multi-faceted issues facing the public today, particularly, a public square ruled by the global stock market-capitalism. Below, I will argue further that a responsible and rational framework providing a proper sense of direction is one of three central parts required to engage in constructive change-making. Much more will need to be said on this topic of a rational framework providing direction than the blog entry in September; I plan to spend more on this important topic in the near future. Until then, I will just add a few more comments on the framework subject before turning to the second integral part -- the role of power, which will be discussed below. Every age, though different, confronts similar fundamental, foundational issues, generally centered on power dynamics, that if not addressed by the people, remain as a barrier to progress. In our age of a public square dominated by corporate power, the central question is, in what ways can the relationship, the power dynamic, between the global corporation, government, and the people be improved so that a productive, cooperative partnership between the three is forged to tackle critical problems, such as extreme poverty, nuclear proliferation, health and medical care, global financial instability, housing, education, environment, etc?

Given the dominance of the corporation in the public square it has become all too easy to dismiss this task as a fool’s errand. This reality is a major reason why roughly 60% of the electorate has disengaged altogether from the public square. There exists today a deep feeling of marginalization of the individual and of the community in the face of a faceless global capitalist machine. At the early stages of stock market-capitalism in America, the workers could put a face to their nemesis. These were the industrialists or capitalist overlords; they were the Vanderbilts, the Fords, the Rockefellers, the Morgans –- there was at one time a human face to powerful industry. Yes, today there are the Gates, the Buffetts, and the Waltons, but these, as wealthy and as powerful as they may be are now dwarfed by the immense size and complexity of modern day global corporations and the global, and often shadowy, capital markets that provide corporations funding. Today the consumer confronts not so much the industrialist as it does an immense industrial and financial complex. Today it is not so much the face of a Vanderbilt or Ford as it is the power and persuasion of corporate trademarks of a GE or Intel, or Google. Today it is not so much the ego of the capitalist overlord as it is a collection of egos caught up in a complex financial organism that is supported by an equally complex legal mechanism. With the rapid growth of corporations, first across municipalities and then across state lines and finally across nearly every national border, the faces of the early industrialists have been supplanted by corporate symbols. Mirroring the rapid growth of the global corporation, central governments have also dramatically increased in size, partly as a shallow attempt to counter the ever-burgeoning power of big business. In the process of an ever-expanding global capitalist machine and ever-increasing size of government, the voice of the people is drowned out of the public square. In response, an overwhelming majority have adopted unhealthy and unproductive frameworks –- a few were noted in the previous blog… the nostalgic, the amnesiac, the fatalist/defeatist, the utopist, etc. However popular these may currently be on babble radio and bobblehead tv, they are fundamentally incapable of bringing about the kind of constructive change we desperately need.

A very broad stroke was painted of the kind of framework that is needed: an everyday, deliberate, focused working out of complex problems to daily take steps toward a more just, more equitable, more peaceful, more responsible and more sustainable society. Broad strokes -- in the days ahead, I will narrow this framework down to more specifics. For now, I will just note that this framework providing rational and responsible direction is only one of three key parts of what is required to bring positive difference in the affairs of the public. Additionally, while I don’t want to give up the good stuff too early, to keep the reader engaged in this thought process, I will give two examples of why this great task we face together is NOT a fool’s errand –- to the contrary, there is very recent evidence from the affairs of global capitalism that suggests this process of constructive engagement is a realizable goal within the grasp of the community of citizens. First, while it is fundamentally true of organizational dynamics (in this case I am referring to the organization taking shape in the legal entity called the “corporate form”) that self interest is the predominant motivation, if not the sole motivation, there is evidence to suggest that the long-term interests of the corporation can be made to be in alignment with the long-term interests of the communities of citizens; otherwise, if they are not, the corporation’s days are terminally numbered to the days remaining of a livable Earth and viable communities of people that inhabit her -- remember, there can be no future in business if there is no future in Earth. As it is in the DNA of corporations to find ways to grow revenue and profit from one month to the next, from one quarter to the next, from one year to the next, from one 10-year business cycle to the next, so too it is in the long-term interests of global corporations to promote sustainable development to ensure long-term business growth. Put simply, with some prodding from the community of citizens and from government, as well as internal guidance from business leaders, the self-interests of the global corporation can actually be turned to work for the interests of the common good. It is possible for the corporation to make money while making a difference. It is possible to do good while doing good business. It is possible to gain profit share while sharing in a common just purpose. In the days ahead I will offer a myriad of examples of businesses doing this very thing today, albeit in limited scale. The aim is to dramatically expand the scale of these sustainability efforts so that they become the very backbone and fiber of the global business enterprise.

Second, while the common citizen has indeed been marginalized over the past 100 years through the tremendous accumulation of power by the global corporation coupled with the increasing size of governments and bureaucracy, the community of people are far from powerless. Pull up the veil, unplug your ear -- the community of citizens have at their disposal great power. Consider for a moment what a highly organized and concentrated protest with consumer dollars can do to the largest, most dominant corporations in the world –- in a matter of days it can shut down the biggest, baddest businesses on the planet. In every crisis there are lessons to be learned. One of the lessons learned from the credit crisis of 2008 is that this entire global capitalist system can be shut down completely over night if the tap of capital runs dry. At the height of the crisis in 2008, both big banks and big businesses were nearing shut down mode and would have come to an immediate halt if it were not for the federal government unilaterally deciding to commit $1 trillion from the public coffers to keep the capital tap flowing. That was not a one-time crisis; read about the Panic of 1907 -- the similarities are eerie. You see, the system we have constructed is one fundamentally built on trust. Dollars are a symbolic representation of that trust. Good news for citizens hoping to regain some power, “trust” dollars are also the lifeblood of corporations. Without capital, corporations die. When credit dries up (which is basically an extension of present capital for future cash flows), when trust dissipates, big business and big banks can be shut down completely. Imagine the implications then if a segment of the voting consumer decided to vote with their “trust” dollars and pull their “trust” capital out of the largest banks, and imagine if the consumer simultaneously used their “trust” dollars in a targeted, strategic boycott of some of the largest corporations -- the capitalist organism would grind to a halt in a very short period of time. I’m talking within months if not weeks or days. This isn’t fiction, folks, it is a fact of the “trust”-based system we have created. Read the remarks of Warren Buffett at the height of the credit crisis in early October 2008 –- he knew better than anyone that this system was on the verge of being shut down entirely if “trust” was not immediately reinforced; in his words, if the government did not step in immediately, it was back to the “stone age.” When faced with this kind of organized citizen-consumer power, big banks and big business can be forced to the public negotiation table. That is power. Now, this is a nuclear option that the consumer possesses in its arsenal, and I am not here advocating for a DEF CON 5 type of response to big business. I am advocating for measured improvements of the system for the betterment of society as a whole. But at the same time it is important for the citizen-consumer to realize that we do have awesome power in our arsenal -- we can turn the lights out on this machine at any time if we so choose. We give the corporation legal and economic life, and we can take away the corporation’s legal and economic life today if we so choose. That is power. And that power provides positioning at the bargaining table.

This second example leads to me the topic of this blog entry –- the organization and concentration of citizen power to create conflict with corporate power…

Before continuing on with the topic of the short history of the American business corporation, it is useful to have at least a short discussion on other integral parts that are needed in this problem solving process. After completing the previous blog, an analogy came to mind that best captures what it takes to compel a productive public movement capable of shifting the public square from its current deteriorating state into an improved, more responsible position: What makes the sailboat capable of going from one point to another point? Is the craft capable? The voyage will end before it begins if the sailboat isn’t seaworthy.

Like most analogies, they are of limited use, so here I will focus on just three essential elements of a seaworthy sailboat each representing three important qualities of good leadership and of a constructive movement: the rudder, the sail, and the hull. The rudder is part of what provides direction to the craft; the previous blog entry is essentially about framing direction -- directing movement responsibly is critical. All the organization fervor and energy in the world is without proper effect if it is not directed in a responsible, constructive manner.

Next, the sail is part of the power source, that which harnesses power (wind) to compel the craft toward an intended direction; setting a course toward a rational and responsible direction does little good if the boat is incapable of being moved in that direction -- at some point in the process, harnessed power and applied force are necessary. Entities possessing a superior power position will not relinquish an ounce of power by intellectual or moral persuasion alone. Power has to be challenged with power; force with force.

Finally, the hull represents the integrity of the vessel; insuring that it doesn’t sink before it starts, that it doesn’t sink when it starts, and that it doesn’t sink before it has arrived. No amount of right direction and harnessed power can ever deliver the boat to the intended destination if it suffers critical structural failure at any point in the voyage. Integrity is a broader concept than how it is frequently thought of, that is personal integrity. Intellectual integrity, for example, the testing of an intellectual position against other intellectual positions, is important to having a strong, sustained movement. Moral integrity, the testing of an ethical framework against other ethical frameworks, is also important to organizational strength. Personal integrity is also important -- how many leaders in the past 12 years alone have fallen out of favor with the public because of a lack of personal integrity? Spiritual integrity also plays a role -- the story of human history is compelled forward by a deep, spiritual longing for a better day and a better way; one of the mistakes of the communists was the attempt to negate this fact by replacing eschatological stories of religion with an alternative eschatological story of the state. A spiritual, or theological, integrity seeks to be tested against other religious-oriented understandings to insure that it can withstand public scrutiny and critical thought. I will speak much more on the kind of integrity I am speaking of in another blog. I will just add here, that integrity requires continual work much like the hull of a wood sailboat requires continual attendance. The wood hull, particularly for a boat that travels salty seas, must receive constant care. A wood hull that does not receive constant care will rapidly deteriorate to the point of being non-functioning and unsalvageable. The aim with a wood hull is not insuring that it cannot be penetrated by water at all; a wood hull is in fact designed to soak up and allow in a little water. The aim is that it not be inundated by water to the point that the craft is no longer seaworthy. To maintain the integrity of the craft, constant work is required; integrity in life is no different.

It is college football season, my favorite time of the year, so I will provide a comparable analogy from football. A smart playbook, a solid scheme, and a good play caller are necessary to direct actions successfully against an opponent. But a playbook is completely worthless without execution through force, without the organized application of power, from one unit of 11 players against another unit of 11 players. Power in the context of football is the ability to force a team’s will on the opposing team; for victory, one must force will on the other. Connected to power is integrity. Strength to apply power must come from hours and hours of practice and physical training. But integrity in the context of football is more than physical training, it is also about organizational strength, about players playing as a team and having a strong bond. A team can have a superior playbook and superior players but if the integrity of the team is not there, it will not properly execute plays, it will not force will, and it will not win.

There are certain qualities favored over others in the formation of a framework that provides direction: intellectual honesty over mind manipulation, rational discourse over empty rhetoric, truth seeking over propaganda making, due diligence over haphazard expedience, historical integrity over agenda-based revisionism, common good over self interest, sustainability over over-consumption, a responsible working out over do-nothing defeatism, constructive engagement over wishful thinking, selfless sharing over selfish greed, love over hate. But even if a group possesses these and has the moral and intellectual high ground, so what? Can a group with limited power simply rely on rationalizing with another group of superior power with the aim to bring a more balance to power? Will a group with superior power relinquish power to the group with less power because it is morally or intellectually persuaded to do so? History says the answer is clearly no. Injustice, the fruit of imbalances in power, ultimately has to be challenged with power and force. Otherwise, there can be no justice. And without justice, there can be no real peace. I cannot reiterate how fundamental this fact is. Just as a sailboat, regardless of a right direction, cannot reach its destination without the harnessing of power, and just as a football team cannot execute plays without the application of force, so too the organized citizen-consumer and organized citizen-voter cannot redirect the ways of global business without applied, focused power. Ultimately, power must be confronted with power; force must be confronted with force.

The board of directors and executive officers of a corporation may in a limited sense come to the rational conclusion that implementing certain sustainable practices is good for business. There are numerous examples of this in fact -- McDonald’s and sustainable fisheries, Cemex and affordable housing, Shell and alternative energy research and development, Cisco and energy efficiency software. Moreover, whole industries may come to certain rational and responsible conclusions that show both a benefit to the bottom line and a net benefit to society, and act accordingly. But these responses have only been limited so far -- traditionally, these have been mere tokens of goodwill for the purpose of gaining greater goodwill from the consumer. A corporation in competition with other corporations will not make the sacrifice of greater profit share merely because a particular course of action may be the right ethical response; a corporation that does so will ultimately be beaten out by the corporation that does not relinquish profit share by moral persuasion alone. For this reason, it is necessary to engage the practices of global business as a whole, rather than piecemeal. But to do this, foundational, structural, legal issues have to be addressed. Statutory and regulatory effects can only be accomplished by properly motivating the politicians. Self-preservation is the primary interest of politicians. To preserve their positions (as well as line up future token positions) requires money, lots of it -- that’s where corporations come in. Since politicians on both sides of the aisle do the bidding of corporations, finally, the organized citizen must engage global business in its entirety in order to effectuate real change. And to do this, organized, concentrated, sustained power must be used, and likely must be used on a global scale. Big business can only relinquish power when persuaded with overwhelming power; moral and intellectual persuasion simply will not do. Force of some sort must be used to create conflict and to effectuate change. History teaches us this fact over and over again. Without force applied to those who hold superior power, a more balance of power can never be attained. Conflict must be created. This harsh reality does not sit comfortably with some who believe that the most powerful entities can be compelled to right direction with mere moral and intellectual persuasion, who believe that conflict should be avoided at all costs, who believe that the use of power can only culminate in destruction. Those who hold to these positions have a misconceived notion of “peaceful” measures to bring change. Accordingly, their notion of “conflict resolution” is desired over conflict creation, their notion of peace is desired over the use of force, their notion of moral and intellectual high ground is desired over an improved actual, physical high ground. What good is a bad peace when there is such strife and discontentment in impoverished communities? A bad peace is no peace at all. What good is a misconceived moral or intellectual high ground when the disenfranchised are living down in the gutter? A misconceived moral high ground is no moral high ground at all. Bad peace and misconceived moral high grounds are nothing more than pitiful illusions to make those living comfortably in society feel more comfortable about their prestige, place and position.

Conflict creation, the application of force to force, is needed to bring a desired just peace and a better place and position for those who have been left behind by global stock-market capitalism. Here I am not meaning violent conflict. Conflict comes in numerous forms. It comes through a majority vote that outnumbers a minority vote by the slimmest of margins. It comes through organized non-violent sit-in protests. It comes through the concentration and organization of labor. And it comes through the organization of consumer capital in the form of targeted boycotts to manipulate corporate and hence, government, action. In earlier discussions on the history of the business corporation, we saw how the first recorded boycott was used effectively in the 1700s to convince merchant traders to no longer sell sugar produced from slave labor. Fast-forward to the 1990s, Nike came under a similar onslaught by the public for its labor practices in third world countries. The intense public pressure resulted in Nike changing some of its corporate behavior and implementing some sustainability practices. Powerful corporations will only change their ways for the better when faced with powerful, organized citizens.

Many issues were raised in this blog that will need to be fleshed out in much greater detail in the near future. But these words are enough to chew on and think over until then. I want to conclude with a short discussion on time and timing. It is true that there is no better time than now, there is no better place than here, to bring positive change for those people who are left out and left behind by global business. There is no better time than now for justice. This is true. It is also true, as history has shown us time and time again, that it takes a certain level and scale of frustration to compel people to organize for the purposes of effectuating positive change. In the late 1800s with the early beginnings of the concentration of capital, we saw the early concentration of labor as workers were discontented with poor factory conditions, unreasonably long work weeks, and cheap, undercutting pay rates to Chinese rail workers. Before the American worker could be compelled to organize, it took a certain level of frustration on the factory floor. Similarly, the citizen as consumer and as voter and as worker and as shareholder, will only be compelled to become organized for the sake of constructive change when the conditions of the economy have deteriorated to such a level that the only course of action remaining is that leading to conflict with corporate power. As citizens, we have not arrived at that point, yet. Our day and time is still too consumed with television, too consumed with the internet, too consumed with clothing, too consumed with big houses, too consumed with vacation homes, too consumed with working to pay off the other things that consume us to care too much about the deteriorating state of politics and of the public square. At some point that will change -- history reiterates that fact -- but that time is not now. The task thus becomes one of preparation for that day.

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy