In theory, these rights and powers can be modified to some extent by external factors such as market forces and government regulations.\u00a0 But oligarchs like Elon Musk largely control both the market and the government, which means that they exercise near-dictatorial power over vast enterprises.\u00a0 \u201cDemocracy is fine in its place,\u201d they argue.\u00a0 But its place is not the capitalist corporation.<\/p>\n
Why isn\u2019t this a topic of lively, angry discussion, especially among pundits and politicians who oppose Donald Trump\u2019s political machine and its MAGA supporters?\u00a0 The answer, I think, is that questioning the ownership rights and decision-making authority of entrepreneurs like Musk challenges dogmas considered sacred even by \u201cprogressives.\u201d\u00a0 This is why it is considered okay to talk about taxing billionaires or regulating AI corporations but not about the structures of ownership and control that are almost certain to make this sort of reform impossible or toothless.\u00a0 Even raising the issue of alternatives to the late-capitalist system of ownership evokes Cold War images of Communism that put an end to the discussion.\u00a0 The fearful exclusion of alternatives is how taboos work in politics as well as in religion.<\/p>\n
Nina Simone sings, \u201cI wish I could know how it feels to be free.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 What would it be like if we were free to challenge capitalist dogmas \u2013 to ask, for example, whether creative entrepreneurs deserve to be rewarded by owning the enterprises they help to create. Suppose we agree, at least for purposes of argument, that dreaming up a way to manufacture reusable rockets and investing money in that enterprise is worth a substantial reward, even if both the dream and the investment were heavily supported by other people\u2019s work and resources.\u00a0 Should that reward include the permanent ownership and control of a company whose value now exceeds that of the GDP of most of the world\u2019s nations?\u00a0 And should that control confer not only the right to reap corporate profits forever (or until the company\u2019s liquidation), but also the power to make all basic operating decisions including whether and how to invest those profits, which governments or other corporations to collaborate with or compete against, how much to \u201cinvest\u201d in political contributions and which candidates to support, whether to produce goods and services for peaceful or military uses . . . . and so on?<\/p>\n If we were having this discussion in a neutral, unstructured environment, we might decide that an innovative entrepreneur like Musk should be assured a handsome income and a role in the further development of the enterprise \u2013 but we might well impose strict income and term limits on his participation.\u00a0 We might deny him the right to make corporate decisions that directly affect the public interest and that should be made democratically.\u00a0 We might make all sorts of arrangements \u2013 but the late-capitalist system that structures our social environment makes the discussion seem hopelessly utopian.\u00a0 The basic drive of this system, reflected in its definition of ownership rights, is to privatize production \u2013 that is, to disempower the public from playing a decisive role in economic decision-making.\u00a0 Capitalist nations practice democracy so long as it does not challenge the near-dictatorial power of great property owners.\u00a0 As Karl Marx once wrote, \u201cThe oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament\u201d (\u201cCritique of the Gotha Programme,\u201d 1875).<\/p>\n As large as it is, Musk\u2019s SpaceX IPO is only the first in a series of enormous public stock offerings to be issued this year. \u00a0Offerings by the giant artificial intelligence companies Open AI and Anthropic are to follow.\u00a0 These events should provoke a burst of discussion about oligarchical power, corporate ownership, and the need for real democracy.\u00a0 Instead, we are offered reasons to keep quiet by investment gurus like Zachary Karabell, who advises readers of the Washington Post<\/em> that \u201cThe SpaceX IPO Has a Bright Side\u201d:<\/p>\n \u201cAs Musk grows his inordinate wealth, SpaceX shares will be distributed throughout the entire market in exchange-traded funds and mutual funds that\u00a0more than half<\/a><\/em>\u00a0of Americans own . . . This isn\u2019t as risky as it sounds. Most individual investors will only have a small exposure to SpaceX . . . But within a month, millions of people and thousands of institutions will own the company\u2019s stock. The democratization of equity markets is a major shift in the U.S. economy. More people than ever are tied to the entire market\u2019s success.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The writer is apparently unaware that \u201cthe democratization of equity markets\u201d is a deceptive myth accepted by virtually no serious analysts.\u00a0 Democratic ownership?\u00a0 The top one percent of the U.S. population measured by income owns more than 50% of all stock traded on American exchanges. \u00a0The top 10% owns around 90%, while the bottom 50% of the population owns only 1%.\u00a0 If \u201cdemocracy\u201d is defined in terms of stock ownership, the trend is clearly anti-democratic. The share of the top 10%\u2019s has increased over time from 81.7% in 1989 to 87\u201393% today and continues to rise.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the distribution of \u201cindexed\u201d SpaceX shares to mutual funds that help to finance retirement pensions and other benefits for millions of Americans has nothing to do with democracy.\u00a0 In fact, it reverses the fundamental principle that democracy means mass participation in decision-making.\u00a0 In the \u201cdeal\u201d described by Karabell, retirees will eventually receive payments (by no means guaranteed) tied to the price of SpaceX stock in exchange for accepting an oligarch\u2019s complete control of one of the world\u2019s wealthiest and most politicized corporations.<\/p>\n This is the same deal that all working people and retirees in late capitalist society are expected to ratify. They and their political representatives are to submit to the effective dictatorship of corporate owners in return for a modest piece of their action.\u00a0 They can talk about Elon Musk\u2019s excessive wealth, political clout, and creepy personal habits as much as they like.\u00a0 They can even advocate regulating corporate excesses and taxing the rich!\u00a0 But questioning the sacred dogma of ownership rights is considered blasphemy \u2013 a taboo that induces most \u201cleftists\u201d as well as \u201ccentrists\u201d to maintain their silence.<\/p>\n It’s this sort of inhibition, based on old Cold War stereotypes and fears, that keeps us from even imagining alternatives to the current system of oligarchical rule.\u00a0 But \u2013 who knows? \u2013 perhaps the SpaceX IPO and its imminent successors will shock us into considering such taboo topics as public ownership, worker-controlled production, and participatory democracy.\u00a0 There are times \u2013 and this is one of them \u2013 when such blasphemy is the only road to social salvation.<\/p>\n __________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n The initial public offering (IPO) raised an estimated $87.5 billion and the total value of SpaceX is now more than $2 trillion. Since Musk owns 85% of the stock, he is the world\u2019s first trillionaire. Public reactions to these events have been vociferous.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[232,2305,874,4063,3226],"class_list":["post-317547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editorial","tag-capitalism","tag-elon-musk","tag-socialism","tag-spacex","tag-trillionaires"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=317547"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":317551,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317547\/revisions\/317551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=317547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=317547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=317547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Richard-E.-Rubenstein.jpg\")
<\/a>Richard E. Rubenstein is a member of the <\/em>TRANSCEND Media Service<\/em><\/a> Editorial Committee, of the <\/em>TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment<\/em><\/a>, and a professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University\u2019s Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution. A graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar), and Harvard Law School, Rubenstein is the author of nine books on analyzing and resolving violent social conflicts. His most recent book is <\/em>Resolving Structural Conflicts: How Violent Systems Can Be Transformed (Routledge, 2017). <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"