Huang - Comment on Tara's post but Blogger.com said my comment was too long

 In Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson outlines her argument that the current state of capitalist societies that function under corporations are essentially “private governments,” which is defined as follows: “The economic system of the society run by this government is communist. The government owns all the nonlabor means of production in the society it governs. It organizes production by means of central planning. The form of the government is a dictatorship. In some cases, the dictator is appointed by an oligarchy…” (38). The power of the CEO as analogous to a dictator is the part that Tara criticizes here because the power of a CEO is more checked than that of a dictator. 

However, this claim is not substantiated from a pragmatic or principle perspective. From a practical standpoint, a few things can be said. Workers are not usually the shareholders. The existence of shareholders might mean that a company’s leadership can be checked by the public, but minority activist shareholders do not exist in every corporation, and even if they did, they do not always lobby for the support of employees. Sometimes workers’ interests contradict profit incentives. 

Additionally, from a principle standpoint, we need to focus on the workers, who are Anderson’s primary concern when she raises qualms with private governments. To respond to this, we should observe Corey Brettschneider’s value theory of democracy. The value of democracy stems from more than just having a voice but democracy should be shaped from three important components: equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. 

First, equality of interests is defined such that “All reasonable interests of citizens be respected as having equal weight” (23). This means that democracy requires that one person has one vote. According to Sen, democracy has an intrinsic value such that each person under a specific government should have the capability to participate in it. Even if shareholders have an interest in improving employees’ lives, they are not employees which means that (1) shareholders do not have to experience being an employee and do not necessarily know what policies would benefit employees and (2) even if they do want to influence CEOs toward policies that would benefit employees, they deserve the rights to freedom of speech and expression for themselves rather than those views being expressed by others. 

Second, having political autonomy means that “Individual rulers in a society characterized by collective self-rule” (24). Taking these two together, that means that those living under the rule of the government (in this case the private government, which refers to the workers of a company) must have an ability to contribute to the decisions made under that government. A company’s employees are not usually the shareholders that Tara refers to and do not have the capability to influence company decisions. Thus, employees are still living under dictatorial rule, even if shareholders have a voice that can potentially check the CEO. 

Third, reciprocity requires that there is a “Commitment to reason giving as a central obligation and entitlement of citizens in a legitimate democracy… must appeal to the argument that reasonable citizens can accept” (24). Because CEOs do not necessarily have the same interests, there is no commitment to reciprocity from those who profit and those who are employed. Unless employees have a stake in the company’s success, there is a disconnect between employees and employers. Therefore, it is not enough for shareholders to have some influence on a CEO’s decisions because they are not the ones impacted by the private government’s rule — employees are and certainly do not have a voice. Under current the model that Tara presents, democratic values are simply not met. The materials conditions that impact laborers need to be met from the voices of laborers themselves to meet democratic values. Anderson’s argument — that “if government is inescapable or necessary for solving certain important problems, the only way to make people free under that government is to make that government a public thing, accountable to the governed” — is a crucial one in support of changing how corporations are structured (65).