Date post: | 11-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | phillipe-doan |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 1
The United States’ Corporatocracy and its Imperialist Agenda to Achieve
Full Spectrum Dominance in Violation of International Laws:
A Radical Interdisciplinary Indictment
Phil Doan
Interdisciplinary Studies 4391, Section 002
Dr. Cindy Atha-Weldon
The University of Texas at Arlington
Fall 2012
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 2
The U.S. Corporatocracy and its Imperialist Agenda to Achieve Full Spectrum Dominance
in Violation of International Laws: A Radical Interdisciplinary Indictment
Introduction
The current challenging state of the American democratic1 project is no longer a
sustainable socio-political system. Democratic truisms such as majority rule (minus its tyranny),
under the condition that minority rights are protected based on equality. Political authority is
legitimized through a popular mandate including free elections as stipulated in the U.S.
Constitution. In fact, since the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal
Elections Commission (130 US 876) in 2010, legalizing unlimited corporate election campaign
funding from their treasuries (Wiist, 2011), the democratic project in the U.S. is nothing more
than a democratic façade. If American democracy still exists, at best it is a dysfunctional one.
American liberal-democratic ideals are corroding. Enlightenment beliefs including “government
of the people, for the people, and by the people” (in which the inalienable rights to) “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness/private property” are no longer feasible in this democratic project.
What has culminated in the domestic arena of American democracy has devolved into an
American corporatocracy. Under this corporatocracy, American-controlled transnational
corporations, global international financial institutions, federal/state bureaucracies, corporate
political action committees, corporate lobbies, corporate lawyers and pro-corporate judges,
including the armed forces--all are hegemonic mechanisms furthering American corporatocratic
political-economic-social interests. Its non-Orwellian mantra should be “government of the
corporations, for the corporations, and by the corporations” (in which the rights to) “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of profits” serve as fundamentals. The globalized free market is the current
1As a matter of differentiation, lowercased “d” refers to the masses (i.e. demos, democratic, democracy, and democratization). While uppercased “D” (i.e. Democratic) refers to the Democratic Party and its doctrine.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 3
universal creed. Corporatists represent the new priesthood serving their God of private capital
(Grupp, 2010; Kelly, 2001).
John Perkins (2004), the author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, himself a
former agent of this American corporatocracy, ascertained the following description of what it
actually consists of. According to him, this corporatocracy entails of an alliance of government,
multinational corporations, and international financial institutions, advancing U.S. geopolitical
(imperialist) interests by using the U.S. military as a last resort when all other means fail. Some
of these means were/are direct/indirect violation of international laws.
In geopolitics, the current international arena is unipolar. At least during the Cold War
there was a (somewhat) balance of power via a bipolar world. The U.S. corporatocracy struggled
for dominance against the Communist-bloc and vice versa. The latter was mostly controlled by
the Soviet Union. Since the latter’s implosion at the end of 1991, the former’s uncontested
hegemony further evolved with its ultimate geopolitical (imperialist) objective to achieve Full
Spectrum Dominance through a unilateralist ideology propagated by the George W. Bush (neo-
conservative) regime. This Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine stipulates unilateralist
confrontations to achieve U.S. geopolitical objectives by “defeating any adversary and control
any situation across the full range of military operations” (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
2000, p. 57). Regardless of what international laws permit, U.S. Full Spectrum Dominance
objectives will continue unhindered.
Even under the Barack Obama administration, domestic successful/failed initiatives are
creating political, economic, and social rifts. With foreign policy matters, however, the U.S.
maintains a unilateralist-hegemonic continuity more in deeds than words (Bacevich, 2010). So
far, the (successful) invasions and (unsuccessful) occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are just
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 4
the beginning efforts to achieve this Full Spectrum Dominance to further American
corporatocratic ambitions. The period being covered in this paper begins with the Cold War and
ends with the current phase of U.S. objectives to achieve this Full Spectrum Dominance under
the Obama administration.
The social sciences are about social institutions and interactions. An interdisciplinary
method utilizing disciplinary insights from political science, economics, and sociology (with an
emphasis on U.S. violation of international laws) will be analyzed. In this order, an integration of
these disciplinary insights will suffice a more holistic tactic to this interdisciplinary indictment
against this U.S. corporatocracy and its violation of international laws. The body of this paper
begins with the internal political institutions and mechanisms exploited by the U.S.
corporatocracy to further its geopolitical hegemony. An educated critic should know that
economics could not be separated from politics and vice versa. The political economy of
corporate capitalist globalization will be dissected via a Marxist (i.e. dialectical materialism)
framework. Sociological insights of the American corporate capitalist class (i.e. the corporate
bourgeoisie) will also reveal its politics, with the objective of maintaining its class interests.
Political Science
Politics is about power struggle. Political science deals with governing institutions in
which political authority is legitimated and political power is distributed. Politics boil down to
(who) gets what, where, when, and how (?). In order to comprehend the foreign policy of any
state, an investigation of its domestic power structures is a good point of reference. Simple
questions such as--WHO are these people? WHAT are their (in this case--political, economic,
and social) interests? WHERE do their power bases reside? WHEN do they formulate their
policies? HOW do they implement these policies? Logically, whatever courses of actions follow,
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 5
will represent their political, economic, and social interests (Chomsky, 2003). The definitive
U.S.objective to fulfill its Full Spectrum Dominance is to exert dominance politically,
economically, and militarily on a global scale (Atwood, 2003).
Economics
Economics deal with various modes-of-production. Since the Cold War ended, global
corporate capitalism has been the dominant economic mode. The globalized free market dictates
the rules of supply and demand. A globalized capitalist economy, especially since the 1970s
under the aegis of neo-liberalism, enriched the corporate priesthood while impoverishing the
global majority. The Washington Consensus (i.e. what is good for the Global North is also good
for the Global South) is the fundamental dogma of this corporate priesthood and its true
believers. Stiglitz (2002) opined that their free market fundamentalisms (i.e. detaxation,
deregulation, and privatization) promulgated by corporate ideologues at the international
financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), brought more harms than
benefits to the global majority. Chesnais (2007) asserted that the current stage of U.S.
imperialism strongly correlates to the economic interests of these IFIs and TNCs in their pursuit,
accumulation, and concentration of private capital, including their domination of the free market.
Sociology
Sociology is the study of socially constructed institutions. Six social institutions serve as
dominant factors prevalent in advanced industrialized nations among the First World. Acting as
agents-of-influence in the socialization process among the citizenry, these social institutions
include the (1) family, (2) state, (3) religion, (4) academia, (5) media, and (6) peer. Furthermore,
sociology includes the study of social demographics such as race, gender, religious affiliations,
age, class stratification, etc. In a class-based corporate capitalist society such as the U.S., a
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 6
person’s socio-economic status (SES) culminates in her upward/downward mobility via the
social ladder. The majority of Americans, however, experienced downward mobility in which
the middle class has been shrinking. For example, under the aegis of Reaganomics at the height
of the Cold War, there were massive increases in military expenditures, detaxation for the
corporate rich, and the under-regulation, deregulation, and federal bailouts of financial markets
(Nader, 1999).At least by end of the Clinton regime the federal budget had a surplus, until the
arrival of the neoconservatives and their successful installation of George W. Bush. This paper’s
author contends that the neoconservative regime of GeorgeW.Bush continued where the
Reaganites left off. All these politico-economic factors benefitted corporatocratic elites at the
expense of the majority of Americans.
Among American corporatocratic elites are members of the transnational corporations
(TNCs), international financial institutions (IFIs), and high-ranking military officials, all three
branches of the federal government, the intelligentsia, and other elite circles. Corporate authority
comes from interlocking directorates. For example, Kerbo (2006) wrote that corporate power
does not necessitate the definitive ownership of the means-of-production. In fact, real corporate
power resides in the collective control of corporate capital. The American corporate class is a
part of what Sklair (2002) termed as the transnational capitalist class (TCC). Since the
precipitation of the neo-liberal blitzkrieg beginning in the mid-1970s, class inequality increased
in America affecting all aspects of downward social mobility. These inequalities include access
to education, healthcare, income, etc. (Yates, 2007).The real winners are American
corporatocratic elites.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 7
This Paper’s Purpose is to Achieve Cognitive Advancement
The purpose of this paper is very simple: to achieve cognitive advancement as proposed
by BoixMansilla (2005). For this paper, cognitive advancement can be achieved through an
integration of insights from the disciplines of political science, economics, and sociology. This
process of integration is a “vehicle” to achieve cognitive advancement. Single disciplinary
insights are inadequate and too reductionist to achieve real solutions to something as complex as
corporatocratic hegemony. Domestically, the current phase of de-democratization in the U.S. is
negatively affecting the majority of the population. Internationally, while elites within the U.S.
corporatocracy are advancing their political, economic, and sociological objectives to achieve
their Full Spectrum Dominance, the global majority (including Americans) are suffering.
This author’s personal philosophy is this: For every human manufactured problem there
are at least two solutions. One of these solutions is resistance-from-below. If humanity is to
survive in a more peaceful and sustainable world (with respect to abiding by international rules
of conduct), then continuous resistance-from-below is non-optional. It is imperative. Without a
doubt, this paper will enlighten those who are still in the dark trapped in the Orwellian cave with
their double-thinking and double-speaking induced by corporate-created realities. They are
probably too busy with their patriotic consumption, entertainment, and atomization. They are
encouraged to join the forces of resistance-from-below.
An Analogy of Political Gangsterism: The “Rule by Law” vs. the “Rule of Law” Doctrines
Regardless of historical and current pretexts, the American imperial project has always
been based on political gangsterism (Chomsky, What we say goes: Conversations on U.S. power
in a changing world, 2007). The Cold War was a struggle for global hegemony between
corporate capitalist gangsters (CCG) from the West and totalitarian Communist gangsters (TCG)
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 8
from the East. Both hegemons were imperialist gangsters in a global war based on their
ideological pretexts, propaganda, including state terrorism, and etc. By the end of this ideological
war, the westside imperialist gangsters had won, or so they claimed. Gangsters always believe
themselves to be above the law. They operate under the rule by law doctrine. They expect others
to obey the laws as de facto that they themselves disobey. Obedience to legal codes is at best a
convenience for these gangsters. If gangsters obey legal mandates as de jure, and operate their
“business” as dictated by the rule of law doctrine, then they would not be gangsters.
Analogous to the Tony Montana character, as a Cuban Mafiosi portrayed by Al Pacino, in
the motion picture Scarface Uncle Sam is an international imperialist gangster. Montana’s
egocentric essence translates to “the world is yours, so take it.” Corporate capitalist gangsters are
similar in their egocentric quintessence of “the world is ours, so we will take it.” The real
difference is this: whereas Tony Montana was a fictional character, corporate capitalist gangsters
are real and more deadly for they absolve themselves of their own criminality. Of course, real
gangsters rarely admit to being gangsters. Four fundamental virtues common among the gangster
ideologyare obedience, respect, honor, and loyalty. Across these virtues, is a code-of-silence.
The Italian Cosa Nostra, the Mexican Mafia (La Eme), the Japanese Yakuza, and the Chinese
Triads are prime examples among organized criminal syndicates, whose members practice this
code upon their initiation. Anyone who breaks this code (resulting in disobedience, disrespect,
dishonor, and disloyalty) will be taken out by any means necessary. Two primary examples of
former pro-U.S. dictators who committed the ultimate crime of disobedience, disrespect,
dishonor, and disloyalty were Panama’s Manuel Noriega and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
Freedom-touting imperialists often proclaimed their mantra that “with freedom comes
responsibility.” If this mantra is to be taken seriously, then certain American corporatocratic
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 9
elites should be held accountable for their direct/indirect violations of international mandates
relating to war crimes, environmental crimes, and other crimes against humanity. All these
crimes amount to crimes-of-obedience ubiquitous throughout recorded human history. Those
whose conducts are illegal (regardless of their intentions) are criminals, period. No one should be
above the law, including international laws, not even elites of the American corporatocracy in
their pursuit of profits.
Evidence from the Disciplinary Sources
“Corporate globalization is enriching the few at the expense of the many, replacing democracy
with rule by corporations and financial elites, destroying the real wealth of the planet and
society to make money for the already wealthy, and eroding relationships of trust and caring that
are the essential foundation of civilized society” (Korten, 2001, p. 5).
This paper is an interdisciplinary indictment against the American corporatocracy and its
(imperialist) agenda to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance in violation of international laws. By
incorporating insights from three social science disciplines (i.e. political science, economics, and
sociology), a more holistic method is utilized with the objective of attaining cognitive
advancement.
Although there are several existing models relevant to research among various academic
disciplines, this paper will utilize the Comprehensive Perspectives Model (Repko, 2012). First,
these disciplinary insights will be isolated by themselves to find evidence to substantiate this
author’s assertions. Second, their commonalities will be integrated for the sake of consistency to
strengthen this author’s argument. Finally, this project will attempt to (1) reach a particular
audience whose interests extend their everyday patriotic consumption laden with corporate-
created delusions, complacency and apathy, and (2) to reach a paradigm shift, even if doing so
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 10
instigates their own mental states of cognitive dissonance. Throughout this paper, insights from
the aforementioned disciplines will be organized in this logical order (Atha-Weldon, October 18,
2012, personal communication). Insights from political science are prioritized to analyze the
political institutions and mechanisms of American corporatocratic elites in the domestic arena.
Insights relevant to the political economy of corporate capitalist globalization will follow to
investigate the economic institutions and mechanisms that American corporate elites privatize
and exploit. They do this by dominating the domestic political arena to advance their corporate
(class) interests. Furthermore, insights from sociology will analyze the sociological structures of
the American corporate capitalist class. In this corporate-funded democracy (Burbach & Tarbell,
2004) corporate power plus political power equals corporate tyranny (Grupp, 2010).
Political Legitimacy in a Representative Democracy under the “Rule of Law” Doctrine
Democracy is a political system in which legitimate governance and its institutions are
derived from legal mandates and mechanisms from the electorate. These include free and fair
elections occurring on a regular basis (Kaase, 2010). In the confines of a Jeffersonian
representative democratic republic relegated by constitutional dictates, American politics boil
down to power acquisition and distribution. In power politics, answers to questions of who(gets)
what, when, where, and how (?) are to be found by analyzing the system’s functioning
mechanisms at the national level (Potter, Goldblatt, Kiloh, & Lewis, 1997). Public opinion is a
central tenet in a representative democracy (Aldrich, Gelpi, Feaver, Reifler & Sharp, 2006).This
has to be included in the process of policy formation pertaining to domestic and foreign policies.
Governmental accountability and transparency are also important in a functional democracy
(Smith & Tolbert, 2010) when bureaucratic operations are (supposedly) pursued under the rule of
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 11
law doctrine. If governmental bureaucrats violate certain laws, then they need to be held
accountable and likewise with corporate fat cats.
Political Legitimacy in an Oligarchic Corporatocracy under the “Rule by Law” Doctrine
Under an oligarchic corporatocracy, political legitimacy is derived from those whose
private capital equates to their private power. American corporatocratic elites operate through
their self-regulated rule by law doctrine. Domestic political institutions, processes and
mechanisms, including military power (Valladao, 2006) are internal means to achieve economic
ends benefitting these corporatocratic elites. Hidden under the façade of “national interest”
pursuits, lie imperial ambitions to maintain, strengthen, and solidify corporatocratic class
interests in this geopolitical New World Order. Supposedly, elites and agents of this
corporatocracy assert their allegiances to “democratize” the international arena with
Americentric2 liberal values of freedom, justice, human rights, private property, hyper-
consumption, possessive individualism, etc. These democratic facades are (Orwellian) rhetorical
devices reeking with corporate sound bites(Herman & Chomsky, 1988)including political
hypocrisy(Chomsky, Contradictions in U.S. foreign policy, 2008), national mythology(Panitch &
Henwood, 2011), Americentric chauvinism(Snow, 2007), and imperial arrogance (Burbach &
Tarbell, 2004). Seeking to democratize the world through externally imposed regime changes
being dictated by American imperialists (while their own democratic institutions are devolving);
American corporatocratic elites are instigating domestic discontent and global instability. These
latter forces of discontent and instability are questioning and resisting U.S.hegemony and its
illegitimacy. This deficit of legitimacy (Cottrell, 2011) in international leadership requires a new
2Americentrism is on par with Eurocentrism, both are manifestations of sociocentric (arrogant) belief systems.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 12
shift in U.S. foreign policy objectives. If real changes come from within, then by the same logic,
regime changes begin at home. These are the real democratic challenges to corporate tyranny.
Domestic Political Institutions and Mechanisms Serving Corporate Interests
Politics boil down to power acquisition and distribution. American politics are no
different. The notion of politics being a process of movement and countermovement (in the
Hegelian sense of the dialectics) to achieve political power is a fair assessment (Phillips, 1991).
In power politics, questions of (who) gets what, when, where, and how (?) are most evident in a
systemic analysis of the functioning mechanisms of corporate elites. Under the aegis of the
American corporatocracy, special interests usually translate to corporate interests. In the
domestic political arena, these special interests include corporate-funded political action
committees (PACs), lobbies, conservative think tanks, politicians, and even pro-corporate
judges.3 Corporate-funded PACs campaign on behalf of politicians whose corporate funding and
media coverage are primary instruments to achieve their electoral victories. Corporate lobbyists
are often former politicians and/or their former staff (Public Citizen, 2010). Corporate-funded
conservative think tanks tout pro-corporate mantras of deregulation, detaxation, and/or
privatization. These domestic politico-economic mechanisms serve to advance the corporate
agenda at the public’s expense.
One major politico-economic mechanism is corporate welfare. One critic correctly
labeled this as wealthfare being welfare for the wealthy (Zepezauer, 2004).This phenomenon is a
combination of (1) the egregious abuse of political power, (2) the economic exploitation of the
public interest, and (3) the ultimate declaration of corporate warfare against the American
demos. The following articles’ summary offers a chilling insight into the functional mechanisms
3Regarding the recent Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United legalizing unlimited corporate electioneering, it is arguable that some members of the judiciary are serving corporate interests (Jost, 2012).
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 13
serving private profits at the public’s expense via corporate welfare. There are several types of
corporate welfare. Huff and Johnson (1993) categorized five types. These include (1) direct
expenditures, (2) credit subsidies, (3) tax expenditures, (4) subsidized services, and (5) trade
restrictions. These are vehicles to deliver public subsidies while redistributing wealth upward
serving corporate elites. The authors argued further that these vehicles of phantom wealth during
the Reagan years were partially responsible for the widening socioeconomic gap between the
have(s) and the have-not(s). All of the above categories of corporate welfare amounted to
roughly $181 billion (Huff & Johnson, 1993).
Among the champions of genuine (democratic) public interest advocacy is RalphNader.
Appearing before the Members of the House Budget Committee on June 30, 1999, Nader played
consumers’ advocate testifying against welfare for the rich. He offered the following typologies
that are more broad and inclusive comparable to Huff & Johnson’s aforementioned categories.
According to Nader (1999) these typologies include (1) government giveaways, (2) government-
funded research & development (R&D), (3) bailouts, (4) corporate tax expenditures, (5)
government-sponsored enterprises, (6) loans & loan guarantees, (7) state & local corporate
welfare (8) export & overseas marketing assistance, (9) defense, transportation & other pork, and
(10) grants & direct subsidies. Although the beginning of the neo-liberal blitzkrieg, in the mid-
1970s, set the stage for corporate capitalist globalization, it was, during the reign of the
Reaganites and their trickle-down-economics that gave birth to the CorporateState of America.
Nader offered a few examples of corporate welfare. Under the first typology of government
giveaways, relevant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) donated the digital television spectrum licenses to existing broadcasters
worth US$70 billion on April 7, 1997. Under the fourth typology of corporate tax expenditures
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 14
are special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, and various tax rates.
Conservative estimates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), projected a total of
more than US$76 billion in FY1999 alone. Under the last typology of corporate tax subsidies the
federal government would have spent at least US$394 billion subsidizing the corporate rich from
2000-2004 under the neoconservative regime of GeorgeW.Bush (Office of Management and
Budget, 1999, as cited in Nader, 1999).
Surprisingly among corporate welfare critics are libertarian capitalists at the CATO
Institute, a conservative think tank. StephenSlivinskiwas its fiscal policy analyst. In his criticism
of the (first) Bush tax cut proposal, Slivinski claimed the Bush administration’s (first) budget
proposal recommended a US$12 billion cut in corporate welfare (Office of Management and
Budget, 2001, cited in Slivinski, 2001). Among the top programs to be cut were (1) the
Advanced Technology Program (ATP), (2) the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), (3) the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), (4) the Maritime Administration’s guaranteed loan
program, and (5) the Small Business Administration (SBA). At the same time, this same budget
included increases in more federal subsidies of corporate-based research and development
(R&D) programs belonging to the fossil fuel and aerospace industries. Increased subsidies were
alsoproposed for the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Foreign Agriculture
Service (FAS), and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Among the worst corporate
welfare programs included the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), the Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) program, the Partnership for the Next Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV), and the Export-Import Bank (Slivinski, 2001).
The pretentious ideological battles (on both isles of the legislative branch) over deficit
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 15
reduction among the Republi-Crats4 are rhetorical devices merely serving the American
corporate bourgeoisie in the end. For example, the BarackObama administration’s budget
proposal included a total of approximately US$98 billion in public spending to subsidize the
corporate rich (Office of Management and Budget, 2012). Again, according to the CATO
Institute’s policy analysis of this OMB-2012’s projection of roughly US$100 billion in corporate
welfare, both (direct and indirect) forms of federal subsidies mostly benefited (1) small
businesses, (2) multinational corporations (MNCs), and (3) industries. Among the governmental
bureaucracies, the Departments (of) Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban
Development were included. The corporate welfare checks would be disbursed through these
various federal bureaucracies and their programs (De Haven, 2012). The recent federal bailouts
of corporate financial institutions deemed as being “too big to fail” again proved the corrupt
relationship among corporate politicians, corporate lobbyists, corporate trade associations, and
pro-corporate governmental bureaucracies. All these factors advanced the corporate rich. In
terms of (public) costs versus (private) benefits, consider the following quantitative assessments.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) used to bailout General Motors (GM) and Chrysler
cost US$32 billion, a conservative estimate as projected by the CBO (Congressional Budget
Office, March 2012, cited in De Haven, 2012). However, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)’s estimate amounted to US$68 billion at the American public’s expense. The federal
conquest of mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cost US$180 billion (De Haven,
2012).
The corporate rich still wants to get richer. The corporate libertarians (Korten, 2011) and
4 Republi-Crats are Republican and Democratic members of Congress serving corporate interests. Not surprisingly, Republicans are more pro-corporate than the Democrats.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 16
other free marketeers have been debating about the corporate tax rate and its reduction5 for some
time now. They are still unsatisfied with the two tax cuts the George W. Bush administration
granted them. Under their mantra of detaxation for the corporate rich, corporate libertarian
economists believe that the corporate tax rate still needs to go down without widening the tax
base. According to the Congressional Research Services (CRS), the corporate tax is the third
largest source of federal revenue. Gravelle and Hungerford cited an estimate from the Treasury
Study purporting that approximately 61% of income from unincorporated businesses benefited
taxpayers who belonged to the top income tax bracket (2011).The critics cited above are all in
strong agreement against corporate welfare. From the left with Nader and Zepezauer while from
the right with Slivinski and De Haven, they believe corporate welfare is wasteful, unfair to the
majority of American taxpayers.
The aforementioned summary dealt with the domestic politico-economic institutions and
mechanisms advancing corporate warfare. In particular, corporate welfare was chosen based on
this author’s assumption that corporate-funded lobbyists, trade associations, politicians, pro-
corporate judges, and corporate-PACs’ ultimate objectives include exploiting their political
connections to maximize corporate power. By means of a cost-and-benefit analysis, through the
exploitation of their political power in the domestic arena, these members of the American
corporatocracy, despite their corporate sound bites, benefited the most at the public’s expense.
The following section deals with their political economy in this current phase of corporate
warfare through an understanding of the Marxist framework of dialectic materialism (i.e. the
class struggles).
Political Economy of Corporate Capitalist Globalization
The very first line written in the Communist Manifesto under section 1, differentiating 5This phenomenon is what this paper’s author coined “detaxation.”
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 17
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, ascertained that human history boils down to a
history of class struggles between the have(s) versus the have-not(s) for economic gains(Marx &
Engels, 1969).This Marxist concept of dialectic materialism dictates that class conflictsare
inevitable given the contradictions embedded in the capitalist mode-of-production (Burnham,
2001). One contradiction is the privatization of politico-economic capital (i.e. private
property).This section deals with the political economy of corporate capitalist globalization.
Some authors have different names to designate this phenomenon including predatory
globalization (Falk, 1999), aristocratic capitalism (Kelly, 2001), empire (Hardt &Negri, 2001 &
2004), corporate rule (Model, 2003; Korten, 2006, 2009 & 2011), hegemonic globalization
(Agnew, 2003 & 2005; Knight, 2005), totalitarian capitalism (Liodakis, 2010), not to mention
neoliberal globalization also being commonly used. All these different designations describe
particular factors regarding the evolution of corporate capitalist globalization. Regardless of
different names or labels describing the same phenomenon, corporate capitalist globalization is
ultimately corporate warfare.
The corporate class not only seeks wealth maximization via profits but also to privatize
their politico-economic power. State institutions and mechanisms are instruments of the
corporate capitalist class (Grant & May, 1991). The corporate capitalist class (i.e. the corporate
bourgeoisie) controls and owns the means-of-production. Through work, the forces-of-
production sell their labor to the corporate bourgeoisie. Under the surplus labor theory of value,
the corporate bourgeoisie are the benefactors of the profits derived from this surplus labor.
Profits are synonymous with the accumulation of capital (Nitzan, 2001). There are three
dominant regimes in economic globalization including (1) trade, (2) production, and (3) finance
(Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999). All these regimes increased private capital
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 18
accumulation. Globalized trade, production, and distribution are controlled by multinational
corporations (MNCs) under their interlocking directorates’ dictates (Soref, 1976; Roy, 1983;
Sklair, 2002; Burris, 1991 & 2011). International financial institutions (IFIs) including the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) are among the dominant
institutions of the financialization process of global corporate capitalism. A dominant inter-
governmental organization (IGO), such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) ensures that
trades move freely crossing all regional geographic boundaries, even if national political
sovereignties are sacrificed for the sake of private wealth accumulation. An example of this is,
national environmental laws being perceived as trade barriers by the WTO. Theses trade barriers
are to be deregulated, under-regulated, or not regulated at all.
In terms of theorizing corporate capitalist globalization and its manifestations, Kellner
(2002) offered the following critical approach to understanding the phenomenon without being
reductionist. It is (1) the product of a technological revolution and (2) the global restructuring of
capitalism, which resulted in (3) the interconnection of economic, technological, political, and
cultural features on a global scale. All these manifestations exist in a dialectical materialism
framework. Among these manifestationsof corporate capitalism is the privatization of public
domains. According to Debab (2011) privatization and globalization are two sides of the same
(corporate) capitalist coin as measured by (1) the flows in foreign direct investments (FDIs) and
(2) foreign portfolio investments (FPIs). In essence, the current phase of corporate capitalist
globalization is globalized capitalism (Robinson, 1998). Geopolitical boundaries are blurred with
the diminishing power of national governments to counter powerful corporate forces of wealth
accumulation (Bose, 2007). If the national interests are still relevant, then they must conform to
and/or comply with corporate interests. There is near consensus in agreement among the authors
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 19
cited above that the evolution of capitalism in its current globalized-form has increased class
inequalities. Wealth accumulation concentration, and privatization, especially since the
precipitation of the neoliberal assault beginning in the mid-1970s. The corporate minority
enriched themselves at the expense of the global majority.
The above section summarized the political economy of corporate capitalist globalization
through the Marxist dialectical materialism framework. In the spirit of C. Wright Mills, the
founder of political sociology in American academia, the following section deals with the
sociopolitical structures of the American corporate bourgeoisie. A class analysis via the sub-
disciplinary insights belonging to political sociology will reveal the sociopolitical structures
encompassing elements of the American corporate bourgeoisie.
Sociopolitical Structures of the American Corporate Bourgeoisie
To understand the politics of any society necessitates an understanding of its class
structures (Pessen, 1982). This roughly translates to political sociology. Studying the domestic
political structures requiresa clear understanding of who acquires and distributes political power
in any existing social order (Allen & Broyles, 1989). Among class dominance theorists includes
political sociologist G. William Domhoff (2004) who proposed a four-process-model of U.S.
domestic political structures. These include the (1) special interest process, (2) policy formation
process, (3) candidate selection process, and (4) ideology formation process. These four
processes are distinct yet overlap each other. The special interest process comprises corporate
lobbies and their PACs’ electioneering of corporate-funded politicians who will ratify pro-
corporate legislations. The policy planning process comprises corporate-funded politicians and
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 20
their reliance upon conservative think tanks6 for expertise and opinion relevant to policy
formation and implementation. The candidate selection process entails these corporate-funded
politicians being privileged by corporate financial contributions. The ideology formation process
includes corporate ownership and control of their media monopolies in shaping public
perceptions by means of propaganda. All these processes interact and overlap each other with the
universal objective of advancing corporate interests.
In the early 1970s, Daniel Fusfeld correctly predicted that the U.S. was slowly evolving
into a corporate state (1972). This period marked the genesis of the neo-liberal blitzkrieg in the
international political economy. Economic power was concentrated among a few super-
corporations. These supercorporations were slowly exerting their dominance in the global
economy. Political power was already concentrated heavily in the executive branch. This
concentration of executive power has been common since the beginning of the Cold War. This
created a symbiotic relationship between self-selected élites of supercorporations and their
dominance of the political decision-making process.
Logically, these economic elites exploited their political connections to (1) preserve and
extend their power, and (2) to use this power to preserve and extend their wealth. These
predictions revealed the inner working mechanisms among the American corporate bourgeoisie.
Dye and Pickering asserted that among the national institutional elites are three sectors including
the (1) corporate, (2) governmental, and (3) public interest. Within each of these sectors were
individuals whose positions of power depended on their institutional roles. Those at the corporate
and governmental levels are the most powerful, especially in policy formation and
implementation (1974). Perrucci and Wysong (2008) designated the term “superclass” to denote 6Currently, among the most powerful corporate-right think tanks include the: New Project for an American Century, American Enterprise Institute, CATO Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Heritage Foundation, and Brookings Institution.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 21
an “invisible class empire.” Members of this superclass dominate two major industries in which
the structures and processes are covert. They are (1) the shadow political industry and (2) the
information industry. Elements of the shadow political industry penetrate and dominate the
political process, especially in policy formation and implementation. The political, economic,
and cultural dimensions of superclass power are hidden from the American public under the
aegis of the corporate-controlled media monopolies of the information industry (pp.142-144).
David Sallach (1974) inferred that class-consciousness, such as the formation of
ideological beliefs, especially in the areas of political socialization and mass media socialization,
are hegemonized by the ruling class. By dominating the political and economic arenas (i.e. the
corporate media monopolies) wherein the accumulation and concentration of wealth are
privatized especially in the political process, the ruling class also shapes class-consciousness
(Schwartz, 1985). Lawrence Joseph went further claiming that the state is not merely an
instrument of the American corporate bourgeoisie. Due to the structural constraints imposed by
the capitalist mode-of-production, the state must continue to serve corporate class interests
(1982).This conception of ideological hegemony is among many Marxist notions within the
dialectic materialism framework. Sklair (2002) ascertained four fractions within the transnational
capitalist class. These are the (1) corporate, (2) state, (3) technical, and (4) consumerist fractions.
These fractions are dominant institutional actors among the transnational capitalist class.
Conflicts and Commonalities among Political Science, Economics, and Sociology
Common ground theory dictates that the beginning stages of interdisciplinary work
require insights from two disciplines being compared simultaneously. This process is necessary
to find some commonalities between the two disciplines being compared. Three comparisons
between (1) political science and economics, (2) economics and sociology, and (3) sociology and
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 22
political science--will reveal more conflicts than commonalities among these three disciplines—
relevant to this paper’s thesis (see Table1, Doan, 2012a).
Political Science and Economics: Political Power resides in the Barrels-of-Corporate-Cash
Political science deals with political legitimacy including governing institutions and
mechanisms and how political power is distributed. Politics boils down to (who) gets what,
where, when, and how (?). Economics deal with various modes-of-production. The American
democratic project includes free market capitalism as the primary economic mode. American
democracy is supposed to involve the citizenry in the political legitimizing process. American
corporate capitalism does involve the citizenry to some extent, but not for the sake of
“legitimacy” as in the political arena. For example, corporations are private entities. They are
totalitarian institutions serving private power. Arguably, the only “legitimacy” they seek is from
the free market as dictated by the laws of supply and demand. This boils down consumption.
Conflicts arise when politico-economic power is privatized by the corporate minority at the
expense of the global majority. This is corporate tyranny. In this context, the one common factor
is corporate control of the domestic (political) institutions and mechanisms serving corporate
(economic) interests.
Economics and Sociology: Corporate Upward Mobility vs. Downward Mobility for the Rest
The American democratic project includes corporate capitalism as an economic mode-of-
production. American society is based on class stratification. The evolution of corporate
capitalism exacerbates socio-economic mobility among the classes. The corporate class greatly
benefited through its (upward) mobility at the expense of the middle and lower classes with their
(downward) mobility. In this context of socio-economic mobility, one commonality among all
three strata is being a part of this democratic project pursuing the American dream. For those in
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 23
the corporate class this American dream had been reached. But for the rest, this American dream
is turning into a socio-economic nightmare.
Sociology and Political Science: The Corporate Class Selects/Elects its own Kind
Sociology is the study of human constructed institutions. These are the (1) family, (2)
state, (3) religion, (4) academia, (5) media, and (6) peer. These six institutions are primary
agents-of-socialization among the citizenry. In democratic societies, political institutions and
mechanisms are legitimated by the electorate as different class interests compete for socio-
political power acquisition and distribution. In the CorporateState of America, corporate
institutions and mechanisms dictate who will wield political power. One common factor is the
American corporate bourgeoisie selects and elects only those within their socio-political ranks
(i.e. the corporate rich). The more capital one (does) have, the more votes one (can) buy.
Final Integration and Implementation
A Reiteration of the Purpose: To Achieve Cognitive Advancement
The major point of interdisciplinary research and writing is to integrate insights from the
single disciplines to gain new knowledge via cognitive advancement (Boix Mansilla, 2005). A
complex phenomenon such as corporate capitalist globalization enriching the already rich cannot
be understood via a single discipline. This is too narrow and does not suffice multifaceted
disciplinary empirical solutions. This narrowness and insufficiency will not advance genuine
solutions to this totalitarian corporatist paradigm. The social sciences are disciplinary studies of
socially constructed institutions and their interactions. An interdisciplinary process utilizing
disciplinary insights from political science, economics, and sociology will attain this cognitive
advancement. The(non)critical masses are politically apathetic, environmentally challenged,
ethically devolved, and socially atomized as patriotic consumers in this “I gotta have it” (Wal-
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 24
Mart) culture (Chomsky, Notes on NAFTA: The masters of mankind, 1993). There needs to be a
paradigm shift to live in a more biocentric thus non-anthropocentric world because the current
corporate capitalist paradigm is not benefitting the global majority, only the corporate minority.
There was never a so-called “consensus” when the Washington Consensus was immaculately
conceived by the corporate priesthood via its free market fundamentalism (Stiglitz, 2002). The
Global North in the core declared corporate warfare against the Global South in the periphery.
Integrative Techniques
As regarding integrative techniques to achieve this cognitive advancement, there are five.
These are (1) redefinition, (2) extension, (3) organization, (4) expansion of a theory, and (5)
transformation (Repko, 2011). Since interdisciplinarians should also be vocabularians, the
redefinition of various words, terminologies, concepts, and/or phrases is the primary stepof the
disciplinary integrationprocess. Different vocabulary and words have different meanings,
depending on their grammatical usage (such as syntax and semantic), in a given context.
Extension usually follows the redefinition of various terms/concepts/phrases. Organization of
these techniques will suffice a coherent framework and comprehension. The expansion of a
theory deals with further conjectural development originated from a particular theory.
Transformation is more than changes. Whether reforming certain legal mandates and policies,
raising awareness or attitudes--this is the most complex technique because it is easier said than
done. All of these aforementioned techniques are relevant to the process of integration of the
disciplinary insights with the objective of attaining cognitive advancement (BoixMansilla, 2005).
Techniques Explained and Utilized
The founder of ancient logic Aristotle once proclaimed that whoever defines the term(s)
wins the argument. Logically, this paper’s author wants to win this argument as stated in
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 25
thethesis. As a necessary condition to winthis argument, the (first) technique of redefinition of
various terms/concepts/phrases will reach this (cantankerous) victory. Authoritative sources to
find the original terms and their meanings from dictionaries will be utilized. After various
terms/concepts/phrases are redefined, they will be connected/extended relative to the
aforementioned insights such as political science, economics, and sociology to advance the final
integration. The (second) technique of extension will also be used. The rationality behind
redefining various terms/concepts/phrases is semantic extension. In this order, the following
terms will be defined: democracy, tyranny, corporation, corporatism, corporate state, neo-
corporatism, and corporatocracy.
Technique(s) of Redefinition/Extension Relevant to Insights from Political
Science/Economics/Sociology
The term democracy (pronounced: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\) has its etymology from Middle
French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos+-kratia--
cracy. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary,the subsequent definitions of
democracyinclude:
(1) A government by the people--especially rule of the majority; (2) A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; (3) A political unit that has a democratic government; (4) Capitalized (Democracy) (includes) the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States (from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy--C. M. Roberts); (5) The common people especially when constituting the source of political authority; and (6) The absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2012). In the contexts of a dysfunctional American democratic project, of all the six
aforementioned definitions, only the fourth one remains (somewhat) true pertaining to the
Democratic Party’s principles, ideals, policies, and etc. All the rest are nothing more than what
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 26
they really are--classifications, characterizations, delineations, definitions, demarcations,
descriptions, explanations, and meanings. The representational version of American democracy
really boils down the monetary vote (Joseph, 2011). Money is on par with freedom. Both are
commodities. This commoditization of freedom rings loudly in this Corporate States of
America. Simply put, the more money one has, the more votes one buys. The more votes one
buys, the more power one privatizes. The more power one privatizes, the more corrupt one
becomes.In opposition to democratic rule is tyranny (pronounced: \ˈtir-ə-nē\) being defined as
(1) An oppressive power; especially oppressive power exerted by government (such as a police state); (2) A government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially one characteristic of anancient Greek city-state; (3) The office, authority, and administration of a tyrant; (4) A rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force; and (5) A tyrannical act (such as workers who had suffered tyrannies) (Merriam-Webster.com, 2012).
Corporation is defined as a “specific legal form of organization of persons and material
resources, chartered by the state, for the purpose of conducting business” (Encyclopædia
Britannica, 2012). Corporatism (Italian corporativismo), also called corporativism, is
The theory and practice of organizing society into corporations subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the corporate state was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012).
State corporatism is “a state governed by representatives not of geographical areas but of
vocational corporations of the employers and employees in each trade, profession, or industry”
(Oxford Dictionaries, 2012).Thus state corporatism strongly correlates to neo-corporatism.
Again, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica
Neo-corporatism is a much more structured theory of interest group activity than pluralism. It is a modern version of statecorporatism, which emerged in the late 19th century in authoritarian systems and had several manifestations in the first half of the 20th century--for example, in Adolf Hitler’s Germany and Francisco Franco’s Spain. In this system, society is seen as a corporate--
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 27
that is, united and hierarchical--body in which the government dominates and all sectors of society (e.g., business, the military, and labour) are required to work for the public interest as defined by the government (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012) . The official definition of corporatocracy (pronounced: /kôrpərəˈtäkrəsē/) means “a
society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2012).
Again, it is this author’s assertion that American democracy is dying and devolving into a
corporatocracy benefiting the corporate bourgeoisie. By controlling the political institutions
and mechanisms to advance economic elite interests, the American corporate class selects its
own rank-and-files.
Redefinition/Extension of Terms/Concepts/Phrases in the Contexts of Political
Science/Economics/Sociology
(1) Political Context
Those who (re)define/extend various terms/concepts/phrases will win their arguments.
In this dysfunctional (representational) democratic project, a redefinition of the term democracy
necessitates its negation. To (de-democratize)democracy leads to its negated form of (de-
democratization). The ensuing (newer) terms are appropriate descriptions of this current
corporate capitalist paradigm relevant to the de-democratization of the Corporate States of
America. In the attempt to redefine and extend the term democracy, consider the subsequent
proposed redefinition/extension of it by this author. Relevant to the aforementioned disciplinary
insights of political science, economics, and sociology the United States’ corporatocracy has
the following characteristics including but not limited to
(1) Corporate rule of the minority basing its (il)legitimacy on private tyranny; (2) A government runs bycorporations, serving corporate interests, and elected by corporate elites; (3) A government in which privatecapital is vested in corporate elites(or) exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of corporaterepresentationusually involving periodically held free elections (serving corporate interests); (4) A political unit that has a corporatocratic government;
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 28
(5) Capitalized (Corporatocracy) (includes) the principles and policies of the Republi-Crats in the Corporate States of America; (6) Public opinion is irrelevantconcerning policies servingpublic interests, especiallywhen constituting the source of political/economic/socialauthorities; and (7) A blatant presence of hereditary/arbitrary and class distinctions/privileges advancing corporate warfare benefiting the American corporate bourgeoisie (Doan, 2012b). Regarding the commoditization of freedom mentioned earlier, the phrase “freedom isn’t
free”is untrue in this corporatocracy. In fact, it is expensive for those who cannot afford this
valuable commodity and free to the corporate bourgeoisie. There are two types of freedom:
positive and negative. Positive freedom is when individual-A’s action DOES NOT infringe upon
individual-B’s inalienable rights and vice versa. Negative freedom is when individual-A’s action
DOES infringe upon individual-B’s inalienable rights and vice versa. Under corporate tyranny,
negative freedom(s) reign benefiting the corporate (haves) in the Global North at the expense of
the Global South. These are the (1) freedom to exploit the (have-nots) based on slave labor and
wage slavery, (2) freedom to rob and steal their natural resources without their consent, and (3)
freedom to externalize corporate environmental costs to the local populations without
legal/financial consequences and at the same time internalize/privatize corporate profits.
(2) Economic Context
The corporate bourgeoisie are among so-called High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs)
(Capgemini & Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management, 2011).Corporate capitalist evolution
in a de-democratized existence is survival of the greediest.In terms of class stratification,
Medium Net Worth Individuals (MNWIs) represent the (shrinking) middle class. Low Net Worth
Individuals (LNWIs) are those stratified among the (growing) lower class.Negative Net Worth
Individuals (NNWIs) are folks living in poverty. Their numbers are increasing. Consider the
following official statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Roughly fifteen percent (46.2 million)
Americanslived in poverty in 2011. Their numbers increased from 2007-2011. In term of
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 29
demographics, naturalized citizens experienced the highest increase between 2010 and 2011.
Poverty rates were decreasing among six demographic groupings including (1) people of
Latina/Latino origins, (2) males, (3) people who were foreign-borne, (4) permanent noncitizens,
(5) people residing in the Southern region, and (6) people residing in statistical urban areas but
outside major cities. In 2011 children under the age of eighteen living in poverty was 21.9
percent. Those between the ages of 18 to 64 stood at 13.7 percent. People aged 65 and older
living in povertystood roughly at 9 percent. Although non-Hispanic Euro-Americans comprised
the majority of the total population (63.2 percent), nevertheless they accounted for 41.5 percent
of all those living in poverty (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, September 2012). Corporatist
and reactionary radio personality Rush Limbaugh believes class warfare from the right to be
“class envy” by the left.If his premise is true, then by the same token, in terms of gravitational
standards based on the Body Mass Index (B.M.I.), Limbaugh’s case is “weight envy” qualifying
him as a candidate for Jenny Craig, NutriSystems, Lite Life, and Weight Watchers combined.
(3) Social Context
“You cannot control your own population by force, but it can be distracted by consumption.”7
Noam Chomsky
In the social context of a consumer based society like the Corporate States of America,
Cartesian common sense equates to a “we shop therefore we are” collective conscience. Despite
all the rhetoric from the establishment about external official enemies possessing their weapons-
of-mass-destruction, the primary instrument of thought control in democratic societies is the
corporate media monopolies. These are unquestioned social institutions deceiving the
(non)critical mass with corporate-created illusions of material consumption, entertainment, and
necessary illusions (Chomsky, Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies, 7 (Chomsky, The United States has essentially a one-party system, 2008, October 10).
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 30
1989). These corporate media monopolies are weapons-of-mass-deception (WMDs) in this
plastic culture. Indoctrinated as patriotic consumers and entertained spectators, Americans chase
more after material wants rather than material needs. In this Me-Me-Me corporatocracy we
consume therefore we are. Free market corporate globalization and its mechanisms equate to
existential weapons-of-mass-consumtpion.
Implementation
As stated above, the objective of interdisciplinary research and writing is to attain
cognitive advancement (Boix Mansilla, 2005). A specific purpose will focus on the forces of
globalization-from-below (Doan, 2012d). These forces-of-resistance are struggling against
totalitarian capitalism (Liodakis, 2010) and its predatory globalization (Falk, 1999). The long
term objective is to overthrow the corporate aristocracy (Kelly, 2001) via the multitude (Hardt &
Negri, 2004) for a sustainable future of coexistence. The subsequent model proposed by this
author is an inclusive one dealing with legal mandates, ethical behavior and sustainable
economics leading to a democratically controlled economy advancing the common good.
Model of Legality + Ethics + Sustainability
Economic Democracy
Although there are various perspectives concerning the destructive aspects of a corrupt
corporatist form of anarcho-capitalism, this author proposes a Model of Legality + Ethics +
Sustainability with Economic Democracy being the common denominator while seriously
addressing Corporate Social Responsibility/Ethics/Legitimacy (Rendtorff, 2009) in this post-
Washington Consensus zeitgeist (Stiglitz, 2002). This model will start with the Utilitarian
principle stipulating that “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people” is
(moral). Furthermore, it is the consequence(s) of an action dictating the course of its action but
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 31
NOT vice versa is (amoral). Corporate capitalism is an (amoral) economic mode-of-production
with only one objective of profit-maximization. American corporate elites within the
transnational capitalist class minority (Sklair, 2002) enriched themselves at the expense of the
global majority. This is a contradiction to the aforementioned Utilitarian principle of (morality).
It is consistent with the Consequential principle of (amorality). This author also contends that
corporate capitalism is the bastardization of what Adam Smith (who was a moral philosopher
nonetheless) argued in his two-volume treatise regarding the political economy of capitalism
(2002). Furthermore, the devolution of American democratic ideals/institutions into corporate
tyranny serving private interests is on par with the bastardization of American representational
democracy.
Planetary existence is at a crossroad being dichotomized by two simple courses of action
if we choose to take them. Either we choose (1) the current corporate-capitalist-imperialist-
paradigm of continuity or (2) resistance-from-below for the sake of survival (Chomsky,
Hegemony or survival: America's quest for global dominance, 2003). What will it take to reach a
paradigm shift from an economic corporatocracy to an economic democracy? This model
proposes the following solutions relevant to the macro-paradigm of business ethics (Heath, 2002;
Rendtorff, 2009).
Legality + Ethics + Sustainability = Economic Democracy
The common denominator of this model is based on the conceptual framework of
economic democracy (Doan, 2012c). Re-constituting legal mandates where economic
concentration is not only serving corporate interests but also for the common good. Corporate
entities will show respect and obedience to the rule of law like everyone else. All corporations
are to be sanctioned equally under this rule of law. In spite of the free market’s limitations
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 32
(Klein, 2003) ethical business conduct must take into account these legal mandates including
the common good (Anderson, 2002; Kelly, 2001; Maitland, 2002; Nielsen, 2002; Sternberg,
2002; Rawls, 2002; Solomon, 2002; Smith, 2002; Wicksteed, 2002). Within this common good
are basic principles of universal (inalienable) rights including but not limited to (1) human and
animal rights, (2) gender equality, (3) organized labor, (4) environmental liberation, etc. will be
respected and honored (Engler, 2010). The objective of this model is to shift from the current
amoral, malfunctioning, malevolent, and bastardized capitalist mode-of-production basing itself
on (short term) profitability to a new economics based on (long term) sustainability (Large,
2010).
Kelly (2001) prescribed the following Principles of Economic Democracy and their
correlates to dethrone the corporate aristocracy:
(1) Principle of Enlightenment: All persons (workers and their communities) are created equal and have the same economic rights as their employers; (2) Principle of Equality: Corporate wealth are de-privatized and communal wealth belong to all (stockholders and stakeholders alike); (3) Principle of the Public Good: Protection of the common welfare of all citizens; (4) Principle of Democracy: Corporate entities are best governed by democratic means; (5) Principle of Justice: Corporate personhood and rights are unconstitutional and de-legitimatized; and (6) Principle of (R)evolution: Democratic abolition and overthrow of non-democratic tyrannies including corporate entities (Kelly, 2001).
Concerning Corporate Social Responsibility/Ethics/Legitimacy
Corporate capitalism enriched the corporate minority while impoverishing the global
majority. For economic democracy to work as the common denominator, corporate social
responsibility/ethics/legitimacy must be addressed. Through an interdisciplinary critique
Rendtorff (2009) synthetized insights from business studies, sociology, political science,
jurisprudence, and philosophy to enlighten those readers who are serious enough to work toward
changes to make capitalism more responsible, ethical, and legitimate.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 33
Conclusion
This paper is a matter of free speech as stipulated via Constitutional dictates. Whether
readers agree or disagree with this paper’s thesis/content is their subjective choice. Due to
deliberate historical amnesia by means of successful indoctrination and propaganda (Snow,
2007), apologists of “Americanism” rarely perceive themselves to be imperialists. At the same
time, these same folks are the quickest to label those who criticize their imperialism with the
stigma of being “anti-American” and all other reactionary labels. Such stigmas are more
common in totalitarian states (i.e. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Islamist Iran, Zionist
Israel, and Maoist China) where conformity and obedience reigns over dissent. Dissent is among
the axiomatic ingredients of a real democratic stew. These reactionaries do not believe in
genuine freedom of speech, unless they themselves are speaking freely or are in agreement with
whatever speech they want to hear. Attending religious services listening to theocentric
redundancy is a prime example. Simply put, Americanists favor “preferred speech” and not
necessarily “free speech.” When dealing with apologists of imperialism and corporate capitalism:
nothing is free, except for their “rational” pursuit of profits. This denial of imperial ambitions is
so obvious to historical victims of American gangster aggression (Atwood, 2003) rendering this
phenomenon close to being Cartesian common sense among these historical victims. In a
personal communication from the great activist academic and linguist, Noam Chomsky, to this
paper’s author--when asked for a few words of wisdom--Chomsky replied with, “It’s up to us to
resist.” Indeed we will continue the resistance-from-below to attain genuine democratization.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 34
References
Introduction
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). (2000). Joint vision 2020: America's military
preparing for tomorrow. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Strategy Division, Directorate for
Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5), Joint Staff. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO). Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1225.pdf
Bacevich, A. J. (2010). Washington rules: America’s path to permanent war. New York, NY:
Metropolitan Books.
Grupp, J. (2010). Corporatism: The secret government of the New World Order. Progressive
Press.
Kelly, M. (2001). The divine right of capital: Dethroning the corporate aristocracy. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man.San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Wiist, W. (2011, July). Citizens United, public health, and democracy: The Supreme Court's
ruling, its implications, and proposed action. American Journal of Public Health,7, 1172-
1179. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300043
Additional Sources
Boix Mansilla, V. (2005). Assessing student work at interdisciplinary crossroads.Change, 37(1),
14-21.
Political Science
Atwood, P.L. (2003, Fall/Winter). War is the American way of life. New England Journal of
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 35
Public Policy, 19(1), 179-199. Introduction. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=121&sid=36acfd49-
7995-4c44-bd5a-2f92eee29600%40sessionmgr104
Chomsky, N. (2003). Towards a new Cold War: U.S. foreign policy from Vietnam to Reagan.
(Second ed.). New York, NY: New Press.
Economics
Chesnais, F. (2007). The economic foundations of contemporary imperialism. Historical
Materialism, 15, 121–142. Koninklijke Brill, NV. Leiben: The Netherlands.
doi: 10.1163/156920607X225906
Stiglitz, J.E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents.New York, NY: W.W.Norton&
Company.
Sociology
Kerbo, H.R. (2006). Social stratification and inequality: Class conflict in historical,
comparative and global perspectives. (Sixthed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Nader, R. (1999, June 30). Testimony of RalphNader before the Committee on the Budget U.S.
House of Representatives. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg57748/html/CHRG-106hhrg57748.htm
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization, capitalism & its alternatives.(Third ed.). New York, NY:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Yates, M. (2007, November). More unequal: Aspects of class in the United States. Monthly
Review,59(6), 1-6.
Evidence from the Disciplinary Sources
Political Science
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 36
Aldrich, J.H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J., & Sharp, K.T. (2006, March 1). Foreign policy
and the electoral connection. Annual Reviews of Political Science,9, 477–502.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.111605.105008
Burbach, R., &Tarbell, J. (2004). Imperial overstretch: GeorgeW.Bush and the hubris of
empire. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Chomsky, N. (2008). Contradictions in U.S. foreign policy. (Interviewed by S. Eppel, & T.
Khadloy, Eds.).The Brown Journal of World Affairs,14(2), pp. 229-239. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8f07545b-31b6-42c6-87c9-
96f4c2b989e5%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=102
Congressional Budget Office. (March 2012). Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-28-2012TARP.pdf
Cottrell, P.M. (2011). Hope or hype? Legitimacy and US leadership in a global age. Foreign
Policy Analysis, 7, 337–358. International Studies Association (ISA).
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00141.x
De Haven, T. (2012). Corporate welfare in the federal budget.Washington, DC: CATO
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA703.pdf
Gravelle, J.G., & Hungerford, T.L. (2011). Corporate tax reform: Issues for Congress.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services. CRS. Retrieved from
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/18686_Previous_Version_2007-
10-31.pdf
Grupp, J. (2010). Corporatism: The secret government of the New World Order. Progressive
Press.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 37
Huff, D.D., &Johnson, D. A. (1993, May). Phantom wealth: Public relief for corporate welfare.
Social Work, 38(3), 311-316. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=22&sid=0bb58a85-
4ae3-4818-9b1b-890811e3a528%40sessionmgr111
Jost, K. (2012, September 28). Supreme Court controversies: Has Chief Justice Roberts led an
activist court? CQ Researcher, 22(24), 813-840. Retrieved from www.cqresearcher.com
Herman, E.S., &Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the
mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Kaase, M. (2011, January 17). Democracy and political action. International Political Science
Review, 31(5), 539–551. doi: 10.1177/0192512110388787
Korten, D. C. (2011). When corporations rule the world.(Second ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Kumarian Press, Inc& Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Office of Management and Budget. (1999). Analytical perspectives: Budget of the U.S.
government, FY 1999.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-1999-PER/pdf/BUDGET-1999-PER.pdf
______(2001). Budget of the United States government, FY 2001.Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-
2001-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2001-PER.pdf
______(2012). Budget of the United States government, FY 2012.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2012-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD.pdf
Phillips, K. (1991). Introduction: The triumph of upper America. In Readings and documents in
post-1945 U.S. history (pp. 296-301). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 38
Public Citizen. (2010, August 11). The truth about the DISCLOSE Act.
Retrieved from http://www.citizen.org/documents/the-truth-about-the-disclose-act.pdf
______(2011, January 21). Citizens United: One year later.
Retrieved from http://www.citizen.org/documents/CU-One-Year-After.pdf
Slivinski, S. (2001). The corporate welfare budget bigger than ever.Washington, DC: CATO
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-
welfare-budget-bigger-ever
Panitch, L., & Henwood, D. (2011). Demystifying globalization. In S. Lilley, Capital and its
discontents: Conversations with radical thinkers in a time of tumult (pp. 78-89). Oakland,
CA: PM Press.
Potter, D., Goldblatt, D., Kiloh, M., &Lewis, P. (Eds.). (1997). Democratization.Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C.J. (2010). Direct democracy, public opinion, and candidate choice.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 85-108. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp097
Snow, N. (2007). The arrogance of American power: What U.S. leaders are doing wrong and
why it's our duty to dissent. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Valladao, A.G. (2006, June). Democratic hegemony and American hegemony. Cambridge
Review of International Affairs, 19(2), 243-260. doi: 10.1080/09557570600723712
Zepezauer, M. (2004). Take the rich off welfare. (New/Expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: South
End Press.
Economics
Agnew, J. (2003). American hegemony into American empire? Lessons from the invasion of
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 39
Iraq. Antipode, 871-885. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=121&sid=cc5009a8-
15be-4c4a-afba-cebfea1cdea8%40sessionmgr104
Agnew, J. (2005). Hegemony: The new shape of global power.Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Bose, P. (2007). ‘New’ imperialism: On globalisation and nation-states. Historical
Materialism (15), 95–120. Koninklijke Brill, NV. Leiben, TheNetherlands.
doi: 10.1163/156920607X225898
Burnham, P. (2001, Autumn). Marx, international political economy and globalization. Capital
&Class(25), 103-112. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=103&sid=febb32fd-
942c-4ff1-b2ba-23240d132587%40sessionmgr10
Burris, V. (1991, September). Director interlocks and the political behavior of corporations and
corporate elites. Social Science Quarterly, 72(3), 537-551. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=103&sid=febb32fd-
942c-4ff1-b2ba-23240d132587%40sessionmgr10
______(2011, June). The two faces of capital: Corporations and individual capitalists as
political actors. American Sociological Review, 66(3), 361-381. American Sociological
Association (ASA). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088884
Debab, N. (2011). Globalization and privatization: Two faces one coin. International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics(74), 7-29. EuroJournals Publishing, Inc.
Retrieved from http://www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 40
Domhoff, G.W. (2004). State and ruling class in corporate America. In R.F.Levine, Enriching
the sociological imagination: How radical sociology changed the discipline (pp. 73-85).
Koninklijke Brill, NV. Leiben, TheNetherlands.
Dye, T.R., &Pickering, J. W. (1974, November). Governmental and corporate elites:
Convergence and differentiation. The Journal of Politics, 36(4), 900-925.
CambridgeUniversity Press/Southern Political Science Association.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2129400
Falk, R. (1999). Predatory globalization: A critique.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Fusfeld, D. R. (1972, March). The rise of the corporate state in America. Journal of Economic
Issues, 6(1), 1-22. Association for Evolutionary Economics (AEE).
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4224117
Grant, R. R., & May, A.M. (1991, June). Class conflict, corporate power, and macroeconomic
policy: The impact of inflation in the post-war period. Journal of Economic Issues, 25(2),
373-381. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6e162b86-f106-47b1-b413-
2fbc269d6bb8%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=102
Gravelle, J.G., & Hungerford, T.L. (2011). Corporate tax reform: Issues for Congress.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services. Retrieved from
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/18686_Previous_Version_2007-
10-31.pdf
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2001). Empire.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
______(2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire.New York,
NY: Penguin Press.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 41
Kellner, D. (2002, November). Theorizing globalization. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 285-305.
American Sociological Association (ASA).
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108613
Kelly, M. (2001). The divine right of capital: Dethroning the corporate aristocracy. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Knight, A. (2005, September/October). Empire, hegemony and globalization in the Americas.
NACLA Report on the Americas, 8-12. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e0ca44e7-a35c-4753-9d8e-
f4c03702b6c8%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=6
Korten, D. C. (2006). The great turning: From empire to Earth community.San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. & Kumarian Press.
______(2009). Agenda for a new economy: From phantom wealth to real wealth.San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
______(2011). When corporations rule the world (Second ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. & Kumarian Press.
Liodakis, G. (2010). Totalitarian capitalism and beyond. Burlington, NJ: Ashgate Publishing
Company.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1969). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In Marx/Engels Selected
Works (F. Engels, & S. Moore, Trans., Vol. 1, pp. 98-137). Moscow, USSR: Progress
Publishers. Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
Model, D. (2003). Corporate rule: Understanding and challenging the New World Order. New
York, NY: Black Rose Books.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 42
Nitzan, J. (2001, Summer). Regimes of differential accumulation: Mergers, stagflation and the
logic of globalization. Review of International Political Economy, 8(2), 226-274.
Taylor& Francis, Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177383
Robinson, W. I. (1998, December). Beyond nation-state paradigms: Globalization, sociology,
and the challenge of transnational. Sociological Forum, 13(4), 561-594. Springer.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/684864
Roy, W.G. (1983, Spring). Interlocking directorates and the corporate revolution. Social Science
History, 7(2), 143-164. Duke University Press/Social Science History Association
(SSHA). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170837
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization, capitalism & its alternatives. (Third ed.). New York,
NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
Soref, M. (1976, Summer). Social class and a division of labor within the corporate elite: A note
on class, interlocking, and executive committee membership of directors of US industrial
firms. The Sociological Quarterly, 17(3), 360-368. Blackwell Publishing/Midwest
Sociological Society(MSS). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4105957
Sociology
Allen, M.P., & Broyles, P. (1989, April). Class hegemony and political finance: Presidential
campaign contributions of wealthy capitalist families. American Sociological Review,
54(2), 275-287. American Sociological Association (ASA).
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095795
Domhoff, G.W. (2004). State and ruling class in corporate America. In R.F.Levine, Enriching
the sociological imagination: How radical sociology changed the discipline (pp. 73-85).
Koninklijke Brill, NV. Leiben, TheNetherlands.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 43
Dye, T.R., &Pickering, J. W. (1974, November). Governmental and corporate elites:
Convergence and differentiation. The Journal of Politics,36(4), 900-925.Cambridge
University Press/Southern Political Science Association.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2129400
Fusfeld, D. R. (1972, March). The rise of the corporate state in America. Journal of Economic
Issues, 6(1), 1-22. Association for Evolutionary Economics (AEE). Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4224117
Joseph, L.B. (1982, Winter). Corporate political power & liberal democratic theory. Polity,
15(2), 246-267. PalgraveMacmillan Journals.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3234680
Pessen, E. (1982, December). Social structure and politics in American history. The American
Historical Review, 87(5), 1290-1325. University of Chicago/American Historical
Association (AHA). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1856914
Perrucci, R., & Wysong, E. (2008). The new class society: Good bye American dream? (Third
ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield.
Sallach, D. L. (1974, Winter). Class domination and ideological hegemony. The Sociological
Quarterly, 15(1), 38-50. Blackwell Publishing/Midwest Sociological Society (MSS).
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4105619
Schwartz, M. (1985, May). Domhoff's contribution. Contemporary Sociology, 14(2), 161-164.
American Sociological Association (AHA).
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2070127
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization, capitalism & its alternatives. (Third ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 44
Final Integration and Implementation
Anderson, E. (2002). The ethical limitations of the market.In Morality & the market: Ethics &
virtues in the conduct of business (pp. 34-49). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
Capgemini and Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management.(2011). 2011 world wealth report.
Retrieved from http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publication/world-
wealth-report-2011/?ftcnt=10120
Carens, J. H. (1981). Equality, moral incentives, and the market: An essay in utopian politico-
economic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies. Boston, MA:
South End Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993, March 29). Notes on NAFTA: The masters of mankind. The Nation, pp.
412-416. Retrieved from http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199303--.htm
Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival: America's quest for global dominance. New York,
NY, USA: Metropolitan Books.
Chomsky, N. (2008, October 10). The United States has essentially a one-party system. (G.
Steingart, Interviewer). Der Spiegel Online. Retrieved from
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20081010.htm
Corporation. (2012). In Oxford dictionaries.Retrieved from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/corporation
Corporate state. (2012). In Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/corporate+state
Corporatism. (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 45
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/408828/corporatism
Corporatocracy. (2012). In Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/corporatocracy
Democracy. (2012). In Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (September 2012). Income, poverty, and health
insurance coverage in the United States: 2011. U.S. Census Bureau: Department of
Commerce/Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
Engler, A. (2010). Economic democracy: The working class alternatives to capitalism. Halifax &
Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
Falk, R. (1999). Predatory globalization: A critique. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Hardt, M., &Negri, A. (2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. New York,
NY: Penguin Press.
Heath, E. (2002). Morality & the market: Ethics & virtues in the conduct of business. (E. Heath,
Ed.) New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Joseph, P. (Producer/Writer/Director). (2011). Zeitgeist: Moving Forward [Documentary]. GMP
LLC.
Kelly, M. (2001).The divine right of capital: Dethroning the corporate aristocracy. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Klein, E. (2003). People first! Professional and business ethics without ethics. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, Inc.
Liodakis, G. (2010). Totalitarian capitalism and beyond. Burlington, NJ: Ashgate Publishing
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 46
Company.
Large, M. (2010).Common wealth: For a free, equal, mutual and sustainable society. Stroud,
Gloucestershire, UK: Hawthorn Press.
Maitland, I. (2002). The limits of business self-regulation. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality & the
market: Ethics & virtues in the conduct of business (pp. 138-145). New York, NY: The
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Neo-corporatism. (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/408828/neo-corporatism
Nielsen, K. (2002). A moral case for socialism. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality & the market: Ethics
& virtues in the conduct of business (pp. 99-104). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hilll
Companies, Inc.
Rawls, J. (2002). A theory of justice. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality & the market: Ethics & virtues
in the conduct of business (pp. 76-88). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
Rendtorff, J. D. (2009). Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization, capitalism & its alternatives (Third ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. (2002). Of prudence. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality & the market: Ethics & virtues in the
conduct of business (pp. 284-286). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Solomon, R. C. (2002). An Aristotelian approach to business ethics. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality
& the market: Ethics & virtues in the conduct of business (pp. 254-259). New York, NY:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 47
Sternberg, E. (2002). The nature of business. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality & the market: Ethics &
virtues in the conduct of business (pp. 49-61). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company.
______(2008). Is there a post-Washington Consensus consensus? Retrieved from
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/papers/2008_Is_There_a_Post-
Washington_Consensus_Consensus.pdf
Tyranny.(2012). In Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
Wicksteed, P. (2002). Business and the economic nexus. In E. Heath (Ed.), Morality & the
market: Ethics & virtues in the conduct of business (pp. 275-281). New York, NY: The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Additional Sources
Atwood, P. L. (2003, Fall/Winter). War is the American way of life. New England Journal of
Public Policy, 19(1), 179-199. Introduction. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=121&sid=36acfd49-
7995-4c44-bd5a-2f92eee29600%40sessionmgr104
Boix Mansilla, V. (2005).Assessing student work at interdisciplinary crossroads.Change, 37(1),
14-21.
Chomsky, N. (2007). What we say goes: Conversations on U.S. power in a changing world. New
York, NY: Metropolitan.
Doan, P. (2012a). Conflicts and commonalities in political science, economics, and sociology.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 48
Table 1.
_______(2012b). Corporatocracy redefined.
_______(2012c). Model of legality + ethics + sustainability = economic democracy.
_______(2012d). Globalization from below: It is up to US to resist.PowerPoint presentation.
Repko, A. (2011). Interdisciplinary research. (Second ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Snow, N. (2007). The arrogance of American power: What U.S. leaders are doing wrong and
why it's our duty to dissent. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
THE U.S. CORPORATOCRACY & FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE 49
Table 1
Conflicts and Commonalities in Political Science, Economics, and Sociology (Doan, 2012a)
Conflict
Commonality
Political Science
and
Economics
Politics boils down to who(gets) what, where, when, and how.Politico-economic power is privatized by the corporate minority at the expense of the global majority.
Corporate control of the domestic politicalinstitutions and mechanisms to serve corporate economicinterests.
Economics
and
Sociology
American society is based on class stratification. The evolution of corporate capitalism worsens socio-economic mobility among the social classes. The corporate class greatly benefited through its upward mobility at the expense of the middle and lower classes with their downward mobility.
One commonality among all three (corporate, middle, and lower) classes is being a part of this democratic project pursuing the American dream. For those in the corporate class this American dream had been reached. But for the rest, this American dream is turning into a socio-economic nightmare.
Sociology
and
Political Science
In democratic societies, political institutions and mechanisms are legitimated by the electorate as different class interests compete for socio-political power acquisition and distribution. In the CorporateState of America, corporate institutions and mechanisms dictate who will wield political power.
The American corporate bourgeoisie selects and elects only those within their socio-political ranks (i.e. the corporate rich). The more capital one has, the more votes one buys.