Profit Over People

Contemporary economic orthodoxy presents itself as the natural, inevitable outcome of historical progress—a system where market forces operate freely to deliver prosperity and democracy worldwide. Yet beneath this veneer of inevitability lies a carefully constructed framework of power relations that systematically privileges corporate interests over human welfare. The dominant narrative of "free markets" and "democratic capitalism" obscures a reality where public resources are consistently transferred to private hands while democratic participation is steadily eroded.

This fundamental disconnect between rhetoric and reality demands rigorous examination. The mechanisms through which power operates in modern capitalist democracies are neither accidental nor temporary aberrations, but rather integral features of a system designed to concentrate wealth and decision-making authority in fewer hands. Understanding these mechanisms requires looking beyond official pronouncements to examine actual policies, their implementation, and their consequences for ordinary people across the globe.

The prevailing economic doctrine known as neoliberalism bears little resemblance to the free market principles it claims to embody. Rather than promoting genuine competition and consumer choice, contemporary "free trade" agreements and economic policies systematically protect large corporations from market discipline while subjecting workers and communities to its harsh effects. This represents a form of corporate mercantilism where state power is used to advance private interests rather than public welfare.

Historical evidence reveals this pattern consistently across different contexts and time periods. When Britain championed "free trade" in the nineteenth century, it did so only after decades of protectionist policies had established its industrial dominance. The country maintained captive colonial markets while blocking competitors through various means. Similarly, the United States developed its economy through extensive protectionism and state intervention, only advocating for "free markets" once its corporations were positioned to dominate globally.

Modern trade agreements continue this tradition by incorporating provisions that have little to do with free trade and much to do with protecting corporate privileges. Intellectual property restrictions prevent developing countries from using the same technological advancement strategies that wealthy nations employed during their own development. Investment protection clauses allow corporations to sue governments for policies that might reduce profits, while governments cannot reciprocally sue corporations.

The telecommunications sector provides a clear example of how this system operates. The internet and advanced communications technologies that supposedly demonstrate the superiority of free markets were actually developed through massive government investment and research. Only after the public bore the costs and risks of development were these technologies transferred to private corporations, which now use their market position to extract profits while claiming credit for innovation.

This pattern of socializing costs while privatizing benefits extends throughout the economy. Corporate subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of state support are reframed as necessary interventions to maintain economic stability, while similar support for workers or communities is denounced as market interference. The result is an economic system that operates according to the principle of "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor."

Modern democratic societies have developed sophisticated mechanisms for securing public acquiescence to policies that primarily serve elite interests. Rather than relying primarily on coercion, advanced industrial societies employ what can be termed "manufacturing consent"—the systematic shaping of public opinion through media, education, and political institutions to ensure that policy debates remain within acceptable bounds.

This process operates through the careful management of information and the framing of political choices. Major policy decisions are often made in forums where public input is minimal or nonexistent, then presented to the population as accomplished facts requiring only minor adjustments. The North American Free Trade Agreement exemplifies this approach: negotiations were conducted largely in secret with extensive input from corporate representatives, while labor organizations and public interest groups were effectively excluded from meaningful participation in the process.

The role of media in this system extends beyond simple bias or propaganda. News organizations, themselves large corporations with their own interests, tend to present policy debates in ways that implicitly accept the fundamental premises of the existing economic order. Alternative viewpoints that question these premises are marginalized or ignored entirely, creating the appearance of democratic debate while ensuring that fundamental power relations remain unchallenged.

Political institutions contribute to this dynamic by creating the appearance of democratic participation while limiting its substance. Electoral systems offer choices between candidates who generally support similar economic policies, regardless of their partisan differences on social issues. Congressional oversight of trade negotiations is minimized through procedures like "Fast Track" authority, which reduces legislative review to simple yes-or-no votes on complex agreements negotiated in private.

The educational system reinforces these patterns by teaching economics and political science in ways that present current arrangements as natural and inevitable. Students learn to analyze policy options within frameworks that assume the desirability of maximizing corporate profits and minimizing government "interference" in markets, without seriously examining alternative ways of organizing economic activity or different definitions of efficiency and progress.

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment represents perhaps the clearest example of how contemporary economic governance operates to transfer power from democratic institutions to corporate entities. Negotiated in near-total secrecy by the world's wealthiest nations, the MAI would have granted foreign corporations rights that effectively supersede those of citizens and their elected representatives.

Under the proposed agreement, corporations would gain the right to sue governments at any level for policies that could be construed as reducing the value of investments. This includes not only direct expropriation but also indirect effects from environmental regulations, labor standards, or social programs that might reduce profitability. Citizens and governments would have no reciprocal right to sue corporations, creating a fundamental asymmetry in legal standing that privileges capital over democracy.

The scope of activities covered by investment protection would extend far beyond traditional manufacturing to include services, natural resources, and even speculative financial transactions. Local hiring preferences, technology transfer requirements, and other policies that communities might use to ensure that foreign investment serves local needs would be prohibited as barriers to capital mobility.

The agreement includes "standstill" and "rollback" provisions designed to prevent governments from enacting new regulations deemed harmful to investor interests and to force the elimination of existing policies that do not conform to the agreement's requirements. These provisions would create a "ratchet effect" whereby regulatory standards could only move in one direction—toward greater accommodation of corporate interests.

Perhaps most significantly, the MAI would lock participating countries into these arrangements for twenty years, making it extremely difficult for future governments to alter course even if public opinion strongly favored different policies. This represents a profound assault on the principle of democratic sovereignty, essentially placing crucial decisions about economic policy beyond the reach of normal democratic processes.

The current neoliberal order represents the latest phase in a long historical pattern whereby dominant powers use economic doctrine to maintain control over weaker societies while extracting wealth for their own benefit. This pattern can be traced through various colonial and imperial arrangements, each justified by theoretical frameworks that present exploitation as mutual benefit.

British colonial policy in India provides an instructive example. The "Permanent Settlement" imposed in the late eighteenth century was presented as a scientific approach to economic development that would benefit all parties. In reality, it systematically transferred wealth from Indian producers to British investors while destroying local industries and creating artificial famines. Similar patterns emerged wherever European powers imposed "free trade" arrangements on societies lacking the military power to resist.

The post-World War II period saw these patterns adapted to new circumstances. International institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were established with ostensibly humanitarian missions but operated according to principles that systematically favored the interests of wealthy creditor nations. Structural adjustment programs imposed on debtor countries required the dismantling of social programs and protective policies while opening markets to foreign corporations.

Latin America provides particularly clear evidence of how these mechanisms operate. Countries that followed IMF prescriptions experienced increased poverty and inequality while foreign investors and local elites accumulated unprecedented wealth. When popular movements emerged to challenge these arrangements, they faced economic pressure and, often, military intervention supported by the United States and other wealthy nations.

The consistent pattern across these historical examples is that economic doctrines are crafted and imposed by those with the power to enforce them, regardless of their effects on the populations subjected to them. Theoretical justifications are developed after the fact to legitimize arrangements that serve the interests of the powerful while imposing costs on the weak.

Despite the overwhelming advantages enjoyed by corporate and state elites, popular resistance movements have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity to challenge and sometimes reverse policies designed to serve narrow interests at public expense. The defeat of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment provides a dramatic example of how organized citizens can overcome seemingly impossible odds when they succeed in exposing the reality behind official rhetoric.

The campaign against the MAI succeeded despite operating with minimal resources against the combined power of the world's wealthiest governments and largest corporations. Activist organizations used new communication technologies to coordinate across national boundaries and share information that had been kept from public view. This allowed them to build coalitions that cut across traditional political divisions and created pressure that governments could not ignore.

The effectiveness of this resistance depended not only on organization but on the fundamental democratic intuitions of ordinary people. When presented with accurate information about the MAI's provisions, large majorities in every country opposed the agreement. This suggests that popular resistance to corporate globalization reflects not ignorance or prejudice, as elites often claim, but rather a sound understanding of democratic principles and human needs.

Similar patterns emerge in other contexts where popular movements have successfully challenged elite power. The labor movement's historic victories in establishing basic worker rights occurred despite overwhelming opposition from both corporate interests and government authorities. Environmental movements have forced changes in industrial practices that would never have occurred through market mechanisms alone.

These successes demonstrate that corporate power, despite its apparent invincibility, depends ultimately on public acquiescence. When that acquiescence breaks down—when people refuse to accept that there are no alternatives to existing arrangements—even the most powerful institutions can be forced to accommodate popular demands. The challenge lies in maintaining the organization and political consciousness necessary to sustain such resistance over time.

The fundamental insight emerging from this analysis is that contemporary economic arrangements represent not the natural operation of market forces, but rather the systematic use of state power to advance corporate interests at public expense. The rhetoric of "free markets" and "democratic capitalism" serves to obscure power relations that consistently favor concentrated wealth over human welfare. Understanding these dynamics requires looking beyond official pronouncements to examine how policies are actually formulated and implemented, and who benefits from the resulting arrangements.

This critique points toward the possibility of alternative arrangements that would genuinely serve democratic principles and human needs rather than corporate profits. Such alternatives become viable when popular movements succeed in exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality, creating space for policies that reflect genuine public priorities rather than elite preferences. The continuing struggle between concentrated power and democratic aspirations remains the central political challenge of our time.