We have to be convinced that change is possible in order to make commitments to taking action and risks. Do we have grounds for optimism?
I have mentioned the American Revolution a number of times in these pages. It is not a casual comparison. There are many parallels between the situation we find ourselves in today, living under the misguided hand of the corporatocracy, and the challenges faced by those early settlers. Just as then, now there is a gathering storm of conviction toward changing the corporatocracy. Yet the American Revolution could not happen until the colonists persuaded themselves that victory was possible.
British subjects first saw that the Empire was vulnerable in 1755, during the French and Indian War, at the Battle of the Monongahela ("Battle of the Wilderness"). George Washington, serving under British General Edward Braddock, personally witnessed one of the worst defeats in English history; its impact on him was enormous. Braddock was killed, Washington emerged a hero, and the colonies had a new respect for their homegrown leaders, as well as a diminished regard for an army that until then had been considered invincible. However, in addition to Tories loyal to England, large numbers of Americans deferred from making any decision.
Then, during the Revolution, at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775, American forces outfought the British in a ferocious pitched battle. Although the Americans ran out of powder and the British claimed victory, nearly half the English forces lay dead or wounded. The colonists were elevated to new levels of confidence. General Washington's crossing of the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, and his spectacular defeat of the feared Hessian mercenaries at Trenton the following day convinced approximately eight thousand new recruits to join the Continental Army. Less than a year later, the colonial victory at Saratoga established American superiority on a battlefield and persuaded the British that their own self- interests might best be served by accepting change; it was a decisive turning point that swayed the French into becoming American allies.
My personal equivalent of Monongahela happened during the last years of the nineties and the beginning ones of the new millennium when I led a number of Dream Change trips deep into the Amazon. Every time I flew across the jungle I witnessed more devastation. I was constantly reminded by the Shuar that this was a sign of failure, of a lack of long-term awareness, and an indication that the corporatocracy was fallible—like the British during the French and Indian War. I came to understand that a change of course was not merely something to be desired; it is a prerequisite for the survival of our species.
We learn from history that a collapsed empire leads to chaos, wars, and a new empire. In the modern context, the chaos and wars are likely to cause the annihilation of life as we know it. For me, it took the South American jungles to bring this home. I came away knowing that we simply have to find an alternative. But, I asked myself, is it possible? I needed proof.
In addition to the Amazon trips, I was also teaching workshops to help executives find creative approaches for solving problems. My "students" represented a cross-section of the world's most powerful companies—Exxon, General Motors, Ford, Harley-Davidson, Shell Nike, Hewlett-Packard, even the World Bank.
Several books and films popular at that time pointed out that the corporation enjoys the same rights as a living person under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This concept was upheld in 1886 by the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific
Railroad Company and has been a fact of law ever since.47 I emphasized to those executives
that the corporation should also be required to accept the same responsibilities as those expected of a person; it too should be a good citizen, an honorable, ethical member of the community. In the case of international corporations, that community has to be defined as the world.
In actual practice, corporations are the opposite of good citizens. They bribe politicians to write laws that cheat society on a mammoth scale, most significantly by allowing them to avoid paying many of the very real costs incurred in conducting their businesses. What economists refer to as "externalities" are left out of pricing calculations. These include the social and environmental costs of destruction of valuable resources, pollution, the burdens on society of workers who become injured or ill and receive little or no health care, the indirect funding received when companies are permitted to market hazardous products, dump wastes into oceans and rivers, pay employees less than a living wage, provide substandard working conditions, and extract natural resources from public lands at less-than-market prices. Furthermore, most corporations are dependent on public subsidies, exemptions, massive advertising and lobbying campaigns, and complex transportation and communications systems that are underwritten by taxpayers; their executives receive inflated salaries, perks, and "golden retirement parachutes," which are written off as tax deductions.
Under proper accounting all these "externalities" would be factored into the costs of products. Those goods and services that are inherently "clean" would also be the cheapest. Consumers would pay a premium for products that strain the environment and society; the price would include funds for correcting the damage. In a truly "free" market economy, these very real costs would be "internalized"—included. But they are not. Why? Because accounting firms are not obligated to enforce sound accounting principles; they only need to adhere to those required by the laws—which are written by politicians who are dependent on the corporatocracy.
Modern corporations have all the rights of individuals but none of the responsibilities. In fact, they are licensed to steal. From an economic standpoint, there is simply no other word for it. They plunder the poor and future generations in order to further enrich the wealthy.
As I conducted workshops and thought more on these matters, I realized that it is one thing to understand that we must insist on fundamental changes in our corporations and it is quite another thing to convince people that we can make it happen. What are the contemporary equivalents of Bunker Hill, Trenton, and Saratoga? Where are the leverage points that give us hope?
I found the answer in a packet of magazine articles I took with me to read on the flight to San Francisco that October day when I learned that New England's fall foliage is threatened with extinction. It was a pivotal day for many reasons.