Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Opinion

Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.


But the more basic, functional, aspect of the problem is that the context has always been corporate interest v public interest. Corporations are structured in such a way that their only interest is the bottom line, how to constantly increase their profit, and so please their shareholders. There is no concern for the public good. That is the source of the problem. And that is what must be reformed. (See my post, "Making the Titans of Finance and Industry Accept Social Responsibility.")

People will say that it is the nature of the beast for corporations to be concerned solely with their bottom line. That is certainly true for the beast as it has developed, from the Robber Barons on. But there is nothing inherent in the idea of a corporation or capitalism that makes it inimical to factoring in a concern for the public good. The essence of capitalism is that control of the means of production and the distribution of products lies in private hands; that will remain unchanged.

My point is that we must rethink what a corporation is. What is its function in our economy and society?

Corporations are a creature of the law. We forget that businesses are entitled to the benefits of incorporation because they provide something of value … they are critical to the economic health of the country and their workers. They meet both economic and societal needs.

From this perspective, corporations exist to enhance the greater good. But from the perspective of their CEOs and shareholders, they exist to make them money. And so, unfortunately, as we have seen repeatedly since the industrial revolution, corporations have been mostly intent on making money and have done much that has had a negative impact on the greater good. Often with full knowledge.

The answer to this conundrum is to reform the laws governing corporate organization by restructuring corporate governance. The goal of this effort should be to make consideration of the greater good … the public interest as well as worker interest … an integral part of the corporate decision-making process.

I propose that this reform has four primary elements:

  • By law, the primary mission of each corporation should be to enhance the greater good. Because it can only enhance the greater good if it is successful and prospers, the first goal within that mission will remain: to prosper and make money for its shareholders; that would not be altered by any of the proposed changes. It would, however, be tempered by new goals relating to the greater good and workers' interests. No longer would the only factor be impact on the bottom line.
  • By law, Boards of Directors should include a stated percentage of directors (perhaps 25%) who represent the interests of the greater good and workers.
  • By law, all management decisions, whether regarding products, manufacturing methods, or personnel, must consider the impact on their workers and the greater good. Any decisions that directly impact workers should be made with worker participation.
  • By law, each corporation must have a public ombudsman in its hierarchy who is responsible for reviewing all procedures and decisions to ensure that the law is followed not just to the letter but in spirit.

These requirements will engage corporations in a more healthy, long-term perspective, rather than the short-term one resulting from the current emphasis on stock price.

Most people currently involved in corporate management, most shareholders, and the broader market will most likely not react kindly to these proposed changes. They would involve both a major change in corporate culture and a likely reduction in the financial benefits that accrue to those running and investing in corporations.

But with the passage of time, with the emergence of a new generation of business leaders, these changes will become such a part of the corporate method that it will be hard to imagine that it was ever otherwise. This is the rational way to manage a business if it is to be not just productive but a good citizen of our society.

If we are to ensure that corporations work towards a goal that includes the greater good, then this reform has to take place.

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

A look at this week's congressional agenda, including House votes on Iran, Ukraine, FISA, appropriations, and key legislative priorities.

Getty Images, aire images

Legislative Preview for June 1, 2026

There will be plenty of coverage around the likely drama involved in picking up where House and Senate Republicans left off before this most recent week off. (For a recap, see our last post.) So we’re not going to go into any detail about what might happen with the reconciliation bill (originally only for two departments in the Department of Homeland Security; now enlarged with funding for the President’s ballroom project and overshadowed by the announcement of the President’s plan to pay off political allies with funds from the Department of Justice) or the FISA extension or the housing bill that’s been pingponging between chambers because you can read in sources like Politico about these marquee issue.

We will note that the Iran War resolution postponed in the House before the recess may be up for a vote this week, along with a resolution to remove US troops from Lebanon and a discharge petition (number 8) to put forward a bill authorizing support for Ukraine. Three privileged resolutions, of which one is a discharge petition (meaning it has 218 co-sponsors meaning at least a few House Republican co-sponsors), is a lot for one week. Especially when all three are expressing opposition to various administration stances and might get some House Republican votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Can Governing Survive Without Continuity?
white and black quote board
Photo by Brendan Beale on Unsplash

Can Governing Survive Without Continuity?

Modern societies depend on continuity.

Electric grids are built over decades. Infrastructure systems require long investment cycles. Defense planning depends on sustained procurement and strategic consistency. Climate adaptation, energy systems, artificial intelligence governance, public health preparedness, and fiscal stability all require institutions capable of maintaining long-term priorities across multiple administrations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Supporters of President Donald Trump, February 09, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Political parties are supposed to do two things at once: win elections and govern. Those are not the same skill.

Winning elections requires assembling coalitions large enough to secure power. Governing requires maintaining enough internal agreement to make decisions, negotiate trade-offs, allocate resources, and sustain policy direction once power is achieved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less