Brian said
< Is it really rule by the people when the two primary parties to the
negotiations are the state and the corporations, and the corporations
are virtually unaccountable to the people.>
It is indeed, Brian, and I can give a concrete example of how it
works. For the past three years, I have been affiliated with the
Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, a research
group founded in 1981 with a $1 million grant from the cosmetics
industry. At that time and continuously throughout the past fourteen
years, "the people" have stated loud and clear that they do not want
their cosmetics and household products tested on animals--putting
massive pressure on corporations to find scientifically valid
alternatives to whole animal testing. Far from being "unaccountable"
to their customers, the corporations have invested huge amounts of
money into the search for alternatives. As the science of in vitro
toxicology has developed, testing protocols have been revamped so
that animals are now the last resort, rather than the first, when it
comes to testing. In 1993, the European Union passed an amendment to
the cosmetics directive which bans the use of animals for cosmetic
testing after 1998, putting even greater pressure on international
companies to develop alternatives.
As an observer and a participant in this process, I have been forced
to re-evaluate and eventually abandon many of my preconceptions about
the way "the system" works (or doesn't in some cases). When
consumers vote with their pocketbooks, corporations listen--they have
to if they want to survive. Laws do make a difference, even if they
are not always enforced as rigorously as we might like. But the
people must make their voices heard and demand change if this system
is to work ! Another interesting observation is that the greatest
obstacles to change come from the "true believers" on both the right
and left who are so convinced of their own moral or intellectual
superiority that they refuse to dialogue and/or compromise with
those whose viewpoints differ. When I used the word "fascism" in my
last post, I met it in a generic sense (autocratic or dictatorial
control) rather than the historical sense; perhaps
"fascism/totalitarianism" would have been a better construction.
Namaste,
Deborah
