Citizens United is part of the problem. But it is also simply part of how every corporation runs. And if run in the same way, nationalization doesn’t necessarily fix this issue, especially when led by similar people with similar motives/understanding of the “way things work.”
The board and the executives, which together make nearly every strategic decision of importance, have one legal obligation above all else: their fiduciary duty. The duty to make money for the investors. This is by far their biggest obligation from a legal standpoint. Meeting this one goal means they’re typically protected from nearly any personal liability (apart from exceptional negligence or criminal actions - but even that can be excused if profits are high enough).
Worse yet, trying to get around this legal duty to be purely incentivized by money has proved to be extremely challenging. For example, corporate trustees have been told that even if the trust explicitly wishes to avoid investing in certain industries to avoid harm (such as oil and gas), the trustee must put the goal of maximizing returns ABOVE the trust’s explicit directives to avoid certain industries. It must choose to diversify its investments to the best of its ability, which almost always includes oil and gas, despite the trust creators saying otherwise. If they don’t, they open themselves up to legal liability for lack of living up to their fiduciary duty. How fucked up is that?
This purely profit-driven legal obligation is the root of many, many problems.
But if we can change it, if we can bolster and prioritize the well-being of employees, customers, and society at large - with a strong legal obligation to do so, or at least give companies the ability to set these as legal obligations of their leaders - then maybe things can shift. ESG investing is paving that way forward, but still faces many roadblocks due to the prioritization of fiduciary duty.
It doesn’t have to be this way. It really shouldn’t have ever been this way, but that’s what late-stage capitalism gets you.
Back in the 50’s to late 70’s during massive economic expansion, companies weren’t perfect, but many acted with a sense of civic duty that simply isn’t part of board room etiquette anymore. We can deprioritize money and increase concern for well-being.
Greed and institutional investors have swept across these leadership positions with downright disgusting ramifications, which have now bled deeper into politics (law makers), policy (laws themselves), interpretation of laws (courts, such as Citizens United ruling), and society at large (those living under these laws and their interpretations).
How do we change it? Start with lawmakers, let that bleed into laws and courts, then eventually it’ll allow companies/industries to prioritize something other than profits. Like just maybe the people who live under it all.
if we can change it, if we can bolster and prioritize the well-being of employees, customers, and society at large - with a strong legal obligation to do so, or at least give companies the ability to set these as legal obligations of their leaders - then maybe things can shift. ESG investing is paving that way forward, but still faces many roadblocks due to the prioritization of fiduciary duty.
How do we change it? Start with lawmakers, let that bleed into laws and courts, then eventually it’ll allow companies/industries to prioritize something other than profits. Like just maybe the people who live under it all.
Really appreciate your viewpoint here. I think you’ve accurately described the disadvantages of late stage capitalism, and why it’s led us into this mess. Also, I think you’re right - the solution is to elect lawmakers who will enact legislation to incentivize ethical and responsible corporate actions.
I think the problem we face preventing that, is that the right wing has dragged the Overton window completely off of stage right. American Democrats, policy wise, would be considered conservatives in most other parts of the world. And both sides of the aisle serve their donors above all else. Everyone in DC is massively conservative, and completely disconnected from the reality in which the rest of us live.
The solution to me seems to be a 3rd party, an actual leftist party with the goal of supporting the people. The data certainly supports this - poll after poll shows the American people are massively progressive, with approval ratings on things like Medicare for all, college for all, and taxing the rich above 80% across the board. And for those originalists out there, the founding fathers were quite clear that they felt a 2 party system would be the death of democracy…and imho, they were right.
So, how can we successfully launch a third party when the corporate media maintains its stranglehold on news and communications? Love me some Lemmy, but sadly platforms like this aren’t enough. Not yet anyway. And the oligarchs have been hard at work massacreing the others, twit and reddit being the latest to fall. I’m intrigued by Cornell West’s talk of a People’s Party, but I have to be honest that I don’t take him seriously and it feels like a false flag to stall meaningful momentum.
Can we actually organize at a local level anymore, considering how the culture wars of division have everyone at each others’ throats? Would love to hear more from you about whether you think the answer lies in a 3rd party or changing the Dems from within.
I agree, the shift in even the most progressive US politicians is still center or even center right of the world stage, and more importantly, where we need to be to fix the issue. I also agree the stranglehold of the two-party system with its dark money pools fueled by super PACs and Citizens United leaves very few options for true change. The distance between what the population wants and what the representatives deliver is yet another despicable result of the current situation. But it also leaves room for hope. Despite the media coverage, most people do want progress and a more equitable society that lets people do as they please.
Launching a successful third party at the federal level is one hell of a battle, but not impossible. I’d say it starts at the local level, with municipal and state leaders willing to break from the status quo. The campaigns for these positions can be surprisingly non-competitive. If they can prove their integrity and willingness to fight for what’s necessary, it could attract the right investors (oh sorry, I mean campaign supporters) to potentially make a run for a federal position, starting with the House of Representatives - which is supposed to be the most diverse representation in the federal legislature and is the easiest to break into.
From there, it’s a relentless battle that must be fought by passionate people. As the voter pool shifts with the aging millennials (who aren’t following the usual path toward conservatism as they age) and Gen Z (who is dealing with a terrible hand of cards from the get-go), this will become easier and with a larger following.
Another prong in the tools of change must address the corporate influence. So-called cancel culture can be a bullshit way to being knee-jerk reactions, but speaking with your wallet can be part of the change. It’s difficult because the vast majority of the economy is controlled by a small group of investors and conglomerates, but still, these bean counters care deeply about their beans. Shifting them toward even slightly better alternatives can push the profit-driven focus in the right direction. Look at EVs for a good example. They’re growing because a demand for expensive vehicles is shifting toward electrification, even though the good ole boys resisted forever. One crack in the industry can cause a major shift.
I also think it’s time for a renewal of the labor movement. Wayyyyy too many people are giving up nearly everything for poverty level wages and a futile existence, just so a very small group can add to their giant piles of gold they’ll never use. The truth is that this labor holds some of the most power in the entire economy and country. But it must be unified and willing to fight for better rights. Many people have been convinced that their interests are aligned with the elites rather than their neighbors (trickle down economics), making this a challenge. It’s also tough due to the lack of ability for most people to save an emergency fund mixed with a fundamentally flawed social safety net system (both by design). But once again, these groups have proven their power in the past and it can happen again.
Small steps in the right direction, local leaders, commitment to spending aligned with ethical desires, and a cohesive labor movement can all make the changes we need. It’s not an overnight change, but it can be done. Hope is still valuable.
Really enjoy the optimism in your reply, it’s so refreshing to encounter, thank you!
Definitely agree on the stated challenges, and the strategy seems sound. But of course, there is the big murky problem area…what to do after gaining a foothold in the House? Justice Dems really seem to lose their momentum after getting their seat. The influence and coercion of the established body politic is clearly quite strong, and must be quite difficult to resist once one is awash in it day-in day-out.
I think, as you mention, a solid foundation of investors/supporters is a crucial piece to this puzzle. I wonder if there are specific character traits we should be looking for in those early-career local politicians that would indicate some potential resilience at the federal level. There have been a few solid and sensible pledges I’ve seen floating around over the years, but their non-binding nature means they consistently fall flat.
