We recently discussed some of the major differences between Democrats and Greens on this blog. Although the previous post outlined serious disagreements on policy matters, it did not cover the larger institutional and structural changes that divide the two parties.
Greens support economic democracy. Democrats support a plutocracy with a few band-aids. Sure, they’ll push for this or that subsidy or program (especially if it was started by a Democratic politician), but there’s never a word about the bigger picture. We hear a lot about redistribution of wealth, but what about predistribution of wealth? Why is there never any talk about reforming the institutions that are causing the problems in the first place?
If an economy is run undemocratically—by and for wealthy shareholders of mega-corporations—the results will be inevitably undemocratic. When elections can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, as our rancid Supreme Court ruled to be legal and just, it will be even more undemocratic. So-called Democrats aren’t concerned about either; they just feign horror over the results.
In his excellent run for Governor of New York, Green candidate Howie Hawkins had economic democracy as part of his platform:
Create a state-owned bank to finance public projects and private businesses at lower cost than private banking…State policy should support the development of unionized worker- and consumer-owned cooperatives in place of corporate welfare giveaways to investor-owned businesses… Cooperatives distribute the net income (“profit”) created by the co-ops’ members in proportion to each members contribution.
Howie Hawkins, New York Gubernatorial Candidate 2014
Remember when Governor Hickenlooper proposed this idea in the Colorado gubernatorial debates? No? Neither do we. It would be denounced as “radical socialism,” despite the fact that even North Dakota has a state run bank.
Similar proposals can be found in the Green New Deal our presidential candidate ran on in the last election:
Create a Corporation for Economic Democracy, a new federal corporation (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory.
Such proposals would require drastic cuts to the US military to fund. So we can expect cynical warmongers like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren to oppose them outright, just as they oppose action on climate change.
If Democrats had been around during ancient English feudalism, they would be pushing for a more progressive tax on the barons, along with more social programs to help the peasants. What’s the point? It’s the institution that’s the problem.
Democrats will spend the next couple years telling us why Hillary is the better corporate war hawk. Why not vote for the Republican, who is at least honest in saying he has no intention of changing anything? Institutions matter, and that’s why the Democratic Party doesn’t.
