Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did anyone catch Charlie Rose's interview with the CEO of GE?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:23 PM
Original message
Did anyone catch Charlie Rose's interview with the CEO of GE?
JEFFREY IMMELT
Chairman / CEO, General Electric Co.
http://www.charlierose.com/index.shtm

As many of you know GE is bigger and richer than some countries, so running GE is perceived as having similar responsibilities as a president of a country. And I think, to a large extent, that's why corporations have merged into mega-entities and tend to act like emerging powers within the global arena. And considering all that they have under their umbrella, it's no wonder - finance, insurance, infrastructure,services,defense, communications, etc. As a quote by one CEO made very clear -
________________________________________________________________
JULY 27, 2000 22:09 UTC
TIMEWARNER HEAD LEVIN WARNS OF 'AMERICAN CULTURAL IMPERIALISM';
SEES CORPORATIONS TAKING 'GOVERNMENT ROLES'

AOL chief executive Steve Case and TIME WARNER chief executive Gerald Levin testified Thursday before a complete panel at the Federal Communications Commission.

But candid comments made by Levin earlier this year during a media
roundtable have some lawmakers in Congress concerned that something is foul with the latest greatest media marriage.

Levin recently warned: In the post-Cold War era there is only "American cultural imperialism."

"There's no countervailing force, that's a significant problem," declared the man who will become the most powerful media executive in history if the AOL/TIME WARNER merger is approved by federal regulators.

Levin sees a future where major media corporations take on responsibilities currently administered by governments.

"We're going to need to have these corporations redefined as instruments of public service because they have the resources, they have the reach, they have the skill base, and maybe there's a new generation coming up that wants to achieve meaning in that context and have an impact, and that may be a more efficient way to deal with society's problems than governments," predicted Levin.

A summary of Levin's past comments were circulated behind committee doors this week, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including Levin's belief that an "old-fashioned regulatory system" has to give way to a new "global concern."

"It does appear that Mr. Levin has greater designs than simply running an entertainment conglomerate," said one Republican lawmaker who would like to question Levin on his feelings about "American cultural imperialism."

At the TIMEWARNER Global Forum gathering in Shanghai last year, Levin
introduced Communist China's President Jiang Zemin, calling him "my good friend."


______________________________________________________________________

And so it was not surprising to listen to Jeffery Immelt talk about how, since he has taken over for Welch, that his biggest adjustment has been coming to grips with this immense power...or as he put it...understanding the new global "context" and how GE fits in with the world. He seemed very happy with their communications arm of the company under Reed (sp?) and emphasized that they were interested in companies and growth that dealt with "content" (the information/message that goes into our t.v.s, radios, movies, etc.), and hopes their acquisition of Vivendi will prove useful in furthering that cause.
He spoke of how China's fast growth has made them THE venue of concentration for his and other major corporations and that GE is interested in infrastructure services. They will be shifting away from their old businesses in appliances, etc. which are not providing avenues of significant growth, and going into new areas such as Security and Water.
This is the future as they see it, and it is profit motivated (growth) and geared toward pleasing shareholders. It is not a new model but the continuation of an old one that is not working and is not leveling the playing field. There was no mention of these issues when he was discussing the company's "context".

These corporations OWN our government, or more accurately hope to replace them and fill the void of power that currently exists while there are no major ruling global entities as such. We do have the beginnings of a world court but for the most part, the global governing infrastructure is not in place, and governments are either in the corporation's pockets or too weak/small to challenge this trend.
While we focus narrowly on the election of a president
are we keeping this bigger issue in mind regarding the selections we make and where we apply our energies? Can WE shift OUR focus and energies away from the status quo in order to combat this new and emerging quasi-government? Instead of protesting at the White House, should we go directly to the heads and addresses of these corporations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Doesn't it seem as though...
the administration is treating the notion of corporate government control as inevidable? The people aren't just going to roll over their rights so quickly especially when the corporations realize that governments as a whole aren't profitable and they start "laying off" citizens, i.e., kicking them out of the country for not being productive enough, or smart enough, or handicapped ect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I saw him but didn't stick around to listen...probably should have.
gin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'm not certain, but think they archive their shows......
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 02:03 PM by Dover
If you're interested, you might check the Charlie Rose web site I linked to. If this subject is important to you that interview provides a peek inside a top executive's head. I think GE and Microsoft are the largest companies in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Alternative Futures - defying corporations & defining Democracy
June 21, 2002 in the Texas Observer

Alternative Futures
A Review of Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy

by Robert Jensen

There is no alternative. Capitalism is the only future. Free markets are the essence of democracy.

How do we know? Because we are told repeatedly by smart guys from corporations and government, and by the journalists and academics paid to explain why the smart guys are right.

In the face of that "consensus," the folks at the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) have launched a direct attack on the nature of the corporation, the institution at the core of modern capitalism.

So, are they crazy or just confused?

Neither. The POCLAD members are refreshingly clear, and the book of their writings -- Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy -- makes a compelling case for their analysis and strategy.

The key is that their critique is of the nature of the corporation. They are not simply saying that corporations do bad things or sometimes distort democracy (most liberals and even some conservatives admit that, especially post-Enron). Instead, they argue that the rise of the contemporary corporation has been the death of meaningful democracy. While I think their analysis needs to broaden (more on that later), the POCLAD collective has done an important service by framing the issue of economic justice in a language accessible to people not yet persuaded by a left/progressive analysis.

Here's the story POCLAD tells:

Our wealthy founding father devised a system that allowed them to maintain power -- by restricting citizenship to propertied white men, and through elite-controlled institutions such as the U.S. Senate and Supreme Court that could corral any wild ideas that regular people might pursue through the relatively more democratic House of Representatives, or state and local governments. Still, the democratic principles on which the country was founded were real, and popular movements over time expanded the franchise and agitated for more democracy.

At the same time those battles have been going on, lawyers and lobbyists have waged a war to expand corporate power. Often relying on judges to do what even well-lobbied legislatures wouldn't, corporations went from being limited entities in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries that could be controlled by the people and their representatives, to today's concentrations of wealth and power that have almost completely escaped popular control.

In POCLAD language, corporations began as entities subordinate to the sovereign people but eventually became masters, eroding the core concept of democracy -- power resides in We the People. Key to this was the courts' granting to corporations the rights of persons, including 14th Amendment rights and eventually even free speech rights. POCLAD points out the obvious: Rights can be claimed only by persons, and corporations aren't real persons but only fictional ones, creations under law.

According to POCLAD, we should move beyond fighting corporations on their terms -- battling to control the worst of their offenses through regulatory law or asking them to curb abuses through voluntary codes of conduct. Instead, citizen-activists should demand that corporations act responsibly in accord with their charters or face charter revocation, the death penalty for corporations.

Along the way, POCLAD retells some American history, with two main effects. First, it denaturalizes the corporation -- and by implication capitalism -- showing that like any other system it is the product of human choices, not some unchangeable natural order. Second, POCLAD members remind us of past resistance to corporations -- from the first half of America's history when corporations were kept on a much shorter leash and such revocations occurred, to the Populists' activism in the late 19th century contesting the legitimacy of corporations, to the work of the early labor movement to articulate an alternative to capitalism. For progressive political change to be possible, people not only have to understand the nature of the systems and institutions that wield power, but also see that it is possible for systems to change.

The book points out that corporations do not simply engage in business but govern much of our lives, in a system that disadvantages natural persons doing battle with these fictional persons. Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy makes this point particularly well in discussing labor law, which gives management huge advantages over workers trying to organize. The authors also argue cogently that whatever short-term victories citizens and environmental groups have won, or can win, in regulatory agencies, the ecological health of the planet has deteriorated, and will continue to deteriorate. So long as corporations can accumulate the wealth and power that contemporary law and politics allows, progressive activists start out in a hole.

As these letters, essays, and speeches (all short and easy to digest) lay out this case, it becomes clear quickly the POCLAD folks have made the strategic choice to focus on corporations and avoid using the word "capitalism." That decision makes sense in a country where critiques of capitalism typically are associated with foreign ideologies (European or Third-World socialism and communism) and totalitarian systems (the Soviet Union and its satellites). While it is true that spirited critiques of capitalism are a homegrown part of American history (some are referenced in the book, such as the Knights of Labor's) and not foreign imports, at this moment in history a strategy that focuses on the corporation is likely to resonate more with Americans. No matter what people think about capitalism as a system (if they think about it at all), virtually everyone has some reason to dislike or distrust corporations; we've all been screwed by a corporation -- as a competitor, employee, consumer, or bystander -- in some fashion at some point.

Given that corporations and modern capitalism can't be separated or separately defined, POCLAD's critique of the corporation goes to the heart of the system. It is possible to highlight the key problems inherent in capitalism -- its need for constant expansion, the exploitation of workers, the commodification of everything -- by focusing on corporations. Indeed, capitalism as we know it couldn't exist without the corporate form. Still, at some point in discussion about politics and economics, people understandably ask, "OK, you don't like what we've got -- what kind of system do you want?"

Do left/progressive folks answer by saying we want capitalism without corporations? Or capitalism with corporations that just have less power? It's not clear what the first claim would mean, nor is it obvious the second would bring substantive improvements.

Or do we articulate a vision that -- whether or not we use the term -- will sound a lot like what traditionally has been known as socialism: no private ownership of the means of production, worker control over production, collective/council structures throughout the economy, participatory planning, etc. Such a system can go by other names; for example, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel call it "participatory economics" (see their book Looking Forward or the web site www.parecon.org). But in the end, it's not unreasonable for people to expect an answer to that question.

One might argue that the first step is to delegitimize the corporation, exposing not only the way it corrupts democracy in the political sphere but crushes people in the private. No argument there, but that first step quickly leads to questions about vision for an alternative system. This is not a demand for an alternative defined in great detail, which usually is a tactic to derail criticism of the existing system. Indeed, when any system is oppressive, it is in some sense enough to demand that the system end. But the effectiveness of that demand is much enhanced by a clear articulation of the underlying principles (which POCLAD offers) and some discussion of that vision, even if tentative and sketchy (which isn't included in this volume).....>>MORE


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0627-03.htm Published on Friday


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. So...............NO ONE saw this interview?
I'd really like to hear from someone who did, to get their impressions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC