The united states' corporatocracy and its imperialist agenda to achieve full spectrum dominance

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 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.


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 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,


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


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.


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)


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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


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.


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.”


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


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


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


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.


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


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 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-


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


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


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--


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;


(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


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).


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


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


(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.


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.


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


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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-


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.


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.



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-


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


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

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=103&sid=febb32fd-942c-4ff1-b2ba-23240d132587%40sessionmgr10

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=103&sid=febb32fd-942c-4ff1-b2ba-23240d132587%40sessionmgr10


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).


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.


Kellner, D. (2002, November). Theorizing globalization. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 285-305.

American Sociological Association (ASA).


Kelly, M. (2001). The divine right of capital: Dethroning the corporate aristocracy. San


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.


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.


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).


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.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.


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).


Schwartz, M. (1985, May). Domhoff's contribution. Contemporary Sociology, 14(2), 161-164.

American Sociological Association (AHA).


Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization, capitalism & its alternatives. (Third ed.). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2129400


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

http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publication/world-

http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publication/world-


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


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


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.


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.




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.


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.

Documents

The united states' corporatocracy and its imperialist agenda to achieve full spectrum dominance