Democratic Party Platform: How to win?

[hobbsyoyo]

What do you think about her when you see she proposes stuff like the Accountable Capitalism Act? I was pretty impressed, at least insofar as it seeks to fundamentally change the duty of large corporations to account for the good of the public and employees, not shareholders. It also mandates workers elect a large share of corporate boards.

I think these are the types of fundamental changes we need to make corporations behave more responsibly. I also think she gets the nitty-gritty details of how to attack these types of problems much much better than anyone else. I personally find this way more compelling than the programs Bernie and even AOC tout. They're good, but they don't offer any actual reform to the system. I think Warren does.

I love this idea and support it.

 

[metalhead]

Her Accountable Capitalism Act is actually pretty interesting, but honestly I think the things AOC is proposing at least are more radical. A Green New Deal could be as revolutionary for the United States as the effort to fight World War II was (midcentury equality in the US was much more the result of the war effort than the original New Deal) and I believe the political consequences of a federal job guarantee would be far more radical than the co-determination system in Warren's proposal.

In any case one need look no further than Germany for ample evidence that co-determination is not inherently revolutionary.

I find the changing of corporate purpose to be the revolutionary part. Or at least, the far more consequential part in terms of changing how capitalist enterprises operate. In tandem with co-determination I find it to be a pretty compelling change to how capitalist enterprise functions here.

The relative equality for white Americans of the 50s and 60s was a product of the GI bill. It allowed people of modest means a reasonable way to build wealth for themselves and future generations. I applaud the jobs guarantee, and believe that if equitably implemented would be a huge boon to underserved, mostly minority populations. But I don't see any leg up in creating actual equality there, to where I'd call it revolutionary, either.

Also Elizabeth Warren has expressed support for a GND, for whatever that is worth.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I find the changing of corporate purpose to be the revolutionary part.

Yeah and honestly I think it would have a bigger, longer-lasting impact than proposals to raise the minimum wage and such. I mean we should still do all those other things but this really strikes me as something that can make a difference in the long run. That corporations have a duty to shareholders above all else is a fiction that slowly crept into statutes as people bought into it. It doesn't mean it's a natural law of the universe. It doesn't mean it serves a useful purpose. It has had a net negative effect on society and needs to go. That, and forcing corporations to share power with their workers would be a huge boon for the economy but it will take time to percolate.

I vaguely remember that the court case that served as the launch pad for the myth of obligation to shareholders was based on fraudulent and perjurous testimony but I don't have time to search for it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Also Elizabeth Warren has expressed support for a GND, for whatever that is worth.

They should rebrand the "Green New Deal"... maybe call it the "Energy New Deal" or "New Energy Deal"... something less tree-hugger sounding. "Energy New Deal" or "New Energy Deal" are going to be much clearer in the abstract and less alienating to average Americans. The narrative is going to be:
"So what is the Green New Deal?"
"Well its a comprehensive... wahn, wah, wahn, wah"
"Whatever, don't care "

We need something that can compete with "Drill baby drill"

Also...whenever you use the word "Green" a substantial portion of the electorate just rolls their eyes and shuts down. Plus, the acronyms "END" and "NED" even sound better and are easier to remember since they form actual words.

Who can I talk to about this?

 

[metalhead]

In a world where corporations built wealth largely by employing a lot of workers, it made some sense.

The problem is, we're 45 years removed from that world, but the brain geniuses running things aren't caught up to the new reality. Capitalism worked out OK (not great, but OK at least for white people) only because labor had power. Labor only had power because A. the government protected it some, and B. large corporations had few ways of increasing revenue and profits that didn't involve employing more people.

Labor is inherently powerless, largely because governments acted to strip it of its power exactly at the moment corporations were able to start increasing profits by employing fewer Americans. Globalization jump-started this process by providing raw materials and then labor far more cheaply than possible here.

So yeah, the whole "duty to shareholders" and really the entirety of the justification for a capitalist order is dead. The problem is that there are far too many plutocrats and reactionaries who personally benefit from that order making decisions these days. They don't have any reason to change it, and lots of reasons to not want to or to even understand why we have to.