1. Companies are not democratic.
2. Being good at war is a good thing.
That's just how it is today, not some natural law. Companies can and have been democratic (e.g. coops and other such forms), and companies can be more democratic going forward if people want it so.
>2.Being good at war is a good thing.
Not for the casualties -- and often not for the general population either. Would a better at war Nazi Germany be "a good thing"? Would a better at Vietnam US be?
Wouldn't survivorship bias dictate that the most successful companies are the ones that are left over, i.e. not democratic > democratic in the business of surviving. Regardless of your ideals.
Until 1850s slavery had also survived as a practice. But then it wasn't...
It might indicate that the current environment in the US, including the legal/regulatory environment and the social environment, is structured (in some cases deliberately) to favor anti-democratic corporations, yes. (Note that at least some sources I've seen indicate that European worker coops have higher survival rates than conventional firms in the same market.)
Or it just might indicate that the democratic governance of firms in the US market is a less frequenrly tried thing, which has had less experience from which to optimize.
Or it might be a mix of both.
Actually, they are democratic, but its the owners who have the vote, not the employees.
> Would a better at war Nazi Germany be "a good thing"?
Yes, from the German perspective, because they wanted world domination.
The problems is you don't know from whose perspective it would be a good thing -- and which end of the gun one will face...
(Which I believe is the intent of the signatories)
The world is relatively peaceful because the US is more powerful than all other nations combined.
I'm sure if you asked the people who signed it, they would think this is a bad thing too.
This not true. The US and it's allies are constantly at war somewhere in the world. Chomsky has written extensively about this