In an 1896 article on “The State and Semi-Public Corporations” Albion W. Small advocated legislation that would not only define how corporations must act in the general interest, but also allow the public to alter corporate charters when deemed necessary for the public welfare (Fine, 1956, p. 266). In 1887 Richard T. Ely proposed reforming corporation law to make directors “responsible at all times for double their investments.” He believed that “these measures would be a most effective antidote to socialism. When the truth in that theory of industrial society is recognized and separated from its error, it must become harmless. What better way to spike the guns of socialism?” (Ely, 1887, p. 263).
But not even the threat of impending revolution was sufficient to persuade the enlightened corporate elite to accept the recommendations of Small and Ely, or even, as Nader says, “as President William Howard Taft proposed – this is a conservative Republican -- early in the century - as well as Teddy Roosevelt ” (Brow, 1996).
Nader’s appeal for federal chartering literally reproduces the rhetoric of the 19th century anti-socialist reformers like Richard T. Ely: “Since the guiding purpose of federal incorporation is to encourage corporate democracy and competition, it is the precise opposite of a socialized economy. To the extent that it attempts to make private firms more accountable to its shareholders and more responsive to competitors, a federal incorporation law is a radically conservative idea” (Corey, 1975, p. 80).
Notwithstanding its alleged conservatism, this idea has not attracted support from Wall Street, which, as Nader knows, guards the sovereignty of corporations far more zealously than it guards American national sovereignty. As Nader says, “Corporations are effectively like states, private governments with vast economic, political and social impact” (p. 81). But the very basis of liberal constitutionalism is the separation of the democratic political state from encroachment on the private executive power that rules in civil society, however “public” the consequences of decisions by corporate CEOs. Nader says, “A democratic society, even if it encourages such groups for private economic purposes, should not suffer such public power without public, or constitutional, accountability” (p. 81). But even if legislation were able to constrain corporate decision-making in some areas, it would be tolerating it by default in all areas not regulated. Like mercury lying on a plate, when squeezed it readily regroups elsewhere.
Nader has promised to lead a “sustained effort to wrest control of our democracy from corporate government and restore it to the political government under control of citizens” (Lazaroff, 2000). To carry through on that would mean building an independent left considerably stronger than the one that was howling at the backs of the corporate reformers in the Gilded Age.
That populist left, as we have seen, when deflected from the hope of a government of, by, and for the people, fanned the flames of radicialism in direct opposition to top-down Progressive corporatism.
DAVID McREYNOLDS ON CORPORATE REFORM David McReynolds, the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, has raised serious questions about how Nader approaches the question of corporate reform: “When Nader speaks against the corporations, what does he propose as a solution?” McReynolds would withdraw and support Nader, “If he proposes the social ownership of the basic means of production, and control by workers and community.” But McReynolds thinks that is highly unlikely: “Like all corporate reformers, back to the beginning of the last century, he is for trust busting, for government interventions and regulations. If this hasn't worked for the last hundred years, why does he think it will work now?” (McReynolds, 2000a, p. 20).
McReynolds speaks for much of the left when he says, “We want a society which empowers working people and makes the entire process more democratic, from the way elections are held - through proportional representation - to the way decisions over what to produce and how it is to be produced. We are clear that huge concentrations of capital in private hands must be ended” (2000a, p. 21).
Is Nader’s attempt to revive the reform program of Progressivism more realistic than a reveille for Debsian radicalism? In McReynolds’ view, “Nader's approach of government intervention is, I think, even more utopian than socialism. To say ‘it hasn't worked’ since 1900 is a vast understatement in the midst of global capitalism” (McReynolds, 2000b).
The challenge “is for Nader to explain why his approach to the great corporations would work better than the trust busting at the beginning of the last century.” And McReynolds wonders whether Nader might “personally hope the country could move in the direction of socialism” (McReynolds, 2000c)
NADER AND DEBSIAN SOCIALISM In an interview with David Barsamian (1996) Nader was asked about Eugene V. Debs. Nader had received the Debs Award in Indiana in 1992. Each year since 1965, with 1971 excepted, an award banquet has been held in Terre Haute honoring a person whose work has been in the spirit of Debs and who has contributed to the advancement of the causes of industrial unionism, social justice, or world peace. So each late October or early November a banquet is held as a tribute to Debs and honoring an individual who has made significant contributions to society in the "Debsian" tradition.
Barsamian observed “a lot of people don't even recognize his name.” Nader replied, “That's part of the historic estrangement of our present-day society. He was a great labor organizer, a man of conscience who went to jail for his beliefs around World War I. You ask most workers who Eugene Debs is and they don't even know.”...