I figure the key is worker ownership of the corporation. Right now we have a nonsensical system where the person who works the assembly line for twenty years gets no ownership stake and no say in business decisions, but the guy who happened to buy some stock from somebody who bought some stock from somebody who initially fronted a bit of seed money does. Naturally, that owner’s interest lies in paying the assembly line worker as little as he’s willing to take.

Worse, money paid to the stock owner is deemed the natural result of the primary function of the corporation, whereas money paid to the workers (who actually have more skin in the game) is seen as a regrettable expense.

When workers own a corporation, that conflict of interest disappears. Money paid to workers effectively moves to the other side of the balance sheet.

The question is, how do we clearly communicate the need for corporate reform? I’m pessimistic about the prospect (pessimistic about a lot of things, really). We’ve just seen possibly the greatest corporate heist in the history of the planet. And where did all the outrage go? It was channeled into scorn for the health care reform that will cover tens of millions of people. It was channeled into fear of “redistributionist” policies that benefit hundreds of millions of honest, hard-working Americans. It was channeled into a spirited, grassroots defense of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. And it was channeled into defeating Democratic politicians whose policies are better for the poor, the middle class, and the economy in general.

That’s the power of controlling the message. That’s the power the proponents of corporate reform are up against.

Book Recommendation: The Divine Right of Capital.

There are opportunities for creating alternatives to corporations for some forms of production. The world is full of good ideas, from 3D printing to open source software and content development to crowdsourcing. In the broadest sense, a corporation is just one possible mechanism for organizing capital (things) and labor (people) in such a way that desirable things are created.

I don’t believe the status quo has failed. Certain parts — including much of the social safety net that the Right would do away with — have succeeded admirably in their goal of reducing misery. Those parts include “redistributionist” programs like Medicare and Social Security. I see small opportunities for those programs to be improved by technology, but I don’t see a major Web-2.0 reboot for them, the way I do for universities and corporations. The reason is, they’re too simple. All they do is hand out money to people who need to be able to afford certain goods and services. There isn’t much overhead to be cut.

Anyhow, such programs need to be protected even as we figure out how to more broadly and effectively deliver things like health care and education.

Sorry to ramble. I do that from time to time.

My biased view is that corporations can help institutions streamline. My first day of graduate school, the professor told us, “The first order of business for any institution is to maintain it’s own existence.” I have never forgotten that. Every single institution or person has its own welfare and maintenance at the core of its mission.

The idea that a market economy could create an effective replacement for the university is also limited. Market economies are fickle. While the peer/tenure system in its current embodiment actually creates less learning and openness, the reasons for the creation of the tenure system are still very important in today’s society, and have helped shaped the idea of Western democracy. Writing papers and defending ideas, creating art and research free from political-religious indoctrination or undue influence, sharing wealth of information- these concepts have permeated culture. However, we need to find or create a dynamic that sustains the models of learning and discovery, without confining them to geography. And we need a system that supports the intent of tenure, without ossifying the system itself.

University models are breaking down in favor of corporations and distribution channels. But there still has to be a supply. There is a general lack of trust for supply without the institutional rigor of traditional universities and the peer system (for-profit colleges). Traditional universities must remain the pillars of discovery, and the source of teaching. But the classroom doesn’t have to be the only channel.

Evolution is not substitution.

Maybe the solution is to take up a more aggressive reform agenda of our own. Move the conversation and assail the institution that the right holds most dear: the corporation.

Take basic education reform. You put a bunch of liberals together to come up with a plan, and the ideas flow freely. But mix in a few conservatives, people who don’t see education as an inalienable right but as a privilege that a child’s parents should pay for (or not, as they see fit), and suddenly the ideas go dry. Suddenly, public education as presently practiced must be protected, because any opportunity for reform becomes an opportunity to dismantle the guarantees written into the current social contract.

The point isn’t that Lefties are good or Righties are bad. The point is that, when you don’t trust that everyone at the table is dealing in good faith or working toward the same goals, then reform becomes an opportunity for your enemies to subvert your goals by backhanded means. Suddenly, the status quo starts looking pretty good.