All language subtitles for the.new.corporation.english

What did
the Enlightenment promise us?

It promised us freedom

on the basis of being able
to think for ourselves,

and thus govern ourselves.

That was really the premise.

That if we were released
from constraints of myth

and tradition,

released to be able to think,

and reason,

and discover
what was true for ourselves,

that that was the source
of our freedom...

but something happened
at the end of the 20th Century,

which was this new way
of thinking about society

and human beings

as a market.

What does it mean
to rule yourself

if we are all meant
to think of ourselves

as commodities,

and everything is marketized?

What's really tragic

about the economization
of every aspect of life

is that we're really seeing
the Enlightenment dream

come to a kind of end,

where the mandates
of a financialized society

all but extinguish
the real freedom

to make yourself
according to your own lights.

In the early 2000s,

we made a film,

"The Corporation."

We argued that large
publicly-traded corporations

are programmed relentlessly
to pursue profit and growth,

and have become the dominant
institutions of our time.

We showed that the corporation
is deemed, by law,

to be a person.

That it has the same rights
as human beings,

sometimes even more.

So we posed the question,

if the corporation
is legally a person,

what kind of person is it?

We analyzed it

the way a psychiatrist
would analyze a patient.

We found its character

to be pathologically
self-interested.

Now with the world in crisis,

climate change,

spiralling inequality,

a global pandemic,

we re-examine the corporation,

how it's changed,

how it's changing our world,

and how it's changing
our very sense of who we are.

To begin this story,

we take you back to the 2000s.

At that time,
the corporation was in crisis.

This meeting
will come to order.

This is a case of America's
largest corporate bankruptcy.

Enron and WorldCom

had collapsed
in corporate scandals

of unprecedented magnitude.

Corporations were being
called out for malfeasance

that was destroying lives
and the environment.

Around the same time,

globalization was sparking
worldwide protests

against the growing power
and impunity of the corporation,

and our first film
had just charged

that corporations
are institutional psychopaths.

I think
calling corporations psychopaths

absolutely had an impact,

and I can say that for myself.

When I had to consume
that particular thought,

that was, um...

that was interesting,

to use a very soft word.

Uh, it was outrageous.

Has it influenced it? Yes.

Are we on the road to recovery?

I hope...
I hope we are.

About 2005,

we started to see

many of the world's biggest
branded companies

suddenly making
very sweeping promises.

Promises such as
100% carbon neutrality,

zero waste to landfills,

zero deforestation,

100% recycling,

a real and significant shift.

Since that shift,

corporations have mounted
a major charm offensive,

rebranding themselves

and rebranding
the entire capitalist system

as having changed,

having evolved
into something new and improved.

I think there is genuinely

a different dialogue
that's taking place

about corporations

and the role that they play
in society.

That cult of shareholder value
has seen its day

as the narrow construct

for how companies operate
in society.

Wait, what did he say?

That cult of shareholder value
has seen its day,

as the narrow construct

for how companies operate
in society.

This idea

that making money
for shareholders

is no longer
the Corporation's only goal,

it's the essence
of the new story,

the story Corporations
now tell about themselves.

What is
the purpose of a company?

Is it just to make money?

This is Klaus Schwab,

the man who first came up
with the idea

of a new kind of corporation.

Companies recognize

that they have
a special responsibility,

how we combine,

or how we blend money-making
and social responsibility.

To advance his ideas,

Schwab built the world's
most important annual gathering

of corporate titans
and world leaders.

Every year,

Davos, in Switzerland,

hosts one of

the most important gatherings
of the global super elite.

It's kind of the first stop

in the elite's
yearly migration route.

People who are successful
and make a lot of money

are a dime a dozen,

but these are the people
who are the most successful.

But Davos
isn't only a meeting place

for the super elite.

It's also where corporate chiefs
and government leaders

come together each year

to promote the story
of the new corporation...

that corporations
are conscientious now,

no longer greedy and selfish,

but poised to help
make the world a better place.

Sandra Navidi
is a Davos insider,

and author of a book

about the world's
most powerful players.

These financial elites
have great power,

and in some instances,

this power
actually exceeds those

of democratically-elected people
or institutions.

This is Jamie Dimon.

He heads the biggest bank
in the United States,

and is a leading voice
for corporate America.

So, the Jamie Dimon reception,

there will be some introduction
to the clients, right?

This is Sanjay Jain,

one of Dimon's top executives
at JP Morgan Chase.

He's advising
a prospective client...

No, but I knew that,
uh, we needed to be here,

because Davos is the place

where all these people
come together for a week.

It's insane what happens here.

...and here's the client,

Bibop Gresta.

Hi. Bibop Gresta,
very nice to meet you.

He's looking for
investors in his company,

that's developing
a transportation capsule

that travels
at the speed of sound.

Sorry.

Sorry, excuse me.

Hi. It's Bibop Gresta,
Chairman of Hyperloop.

Nice to meet you...

Oh, good, yeah,
I saw some of your colleagues.

Thank you.
Good luck to you.

Hey, you're here!

How are you?

Jamie, thank you
for inviting me.

Are you going, like,
to a black tie tonight?

Well, yeah, they said--

Or are you just
dressed like this?

No, I was in the--

I was telling Tony Blair...

How are you?
Nice to meet you.

...you, you guys have
something in common.

-Yes.
-You were in a rock band.

Right.

He had his own rock band
before he was Prime Minister.

That's true, that's true...

I don't know
what I was expecting

from a person like Jamie Dimon.

I discovered a person

that installed
a very great culture

inside their company.

They're starting programs
trying to improve society,

creating a special program
for Detroit,

reconstruct it completely,

I wasn't expecting that.

I knew what you've done
for Detroit

and all the effort
that you did to save it,

and it's not public yet,

but we are...
we signed a deal with Ohio

to actually build
a Hyperloop to Detroit.

We are trying to contribute,

following your example.

I think it's a very
important project.

It's a big, big year for us.

It's exciting.

I'll see you in a couple weeks.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Davos is a place
of interaction, of dialogue.

We look at the ecosystem
of what's happening,

but always with a sense
of responsibility

for us,

and "us," it means
not just one country,

not just one person.

I think at the end,

we are all a globally
interdependent humankind.

So here in Davos,

we debated the motion,

is the business of business
still just business,

and interestingly,

more than 80% said no,

in today's transformative age,

business has
a wider accountability

and opportunity.

We're in a new age
of doing business.

You need to give back.

You need to be
part of the solution.

Society is demanding
that companies,

both public and private,

serve a social purpose.

There is a new possibility.

We can imagine
something different.

It takes courageous leadership,

and it takes people
who get it here,

and who get it here,

and who understand
that life is short and precious,

and if we're in positions
of power and influence,

that we should use that
to help shift the paradigm,

and the possibility
of what it means

to be a business on the planet,

and what it means
to be a human being.

It all sounds so good,

this talk of a new kind
of corporation,

in Davos
and everywhere else.

For many businesses,

the commitment
to the triple bottom line

of people, profit, and planet

is real.

The problem is the capitalist
system as a whole

is not committed to that.

There are CEOs
and corporate boards

attempting to do good
in the world.

There clearly are...

but the notion

that there's anything
inherently socially responsible

about a corporation

is a counterintuitive
proposition.

By law, the corporation
exists for one reason--

to return benefits
to shareholders.

There is no such thing

as corporate
social responsibility.

Corporations don't have the leeway

to sacrifice shareholder returns

for doing whatever they want,

or whatever they believe
is socially responsible.

What then do we make

of the corporation's new image?

Of the claim
corporations have changed?

Since our last film,

the American
Psychiatric Association

has added a new item
to its diagnostic checklist.

You always have to come back,
as a leader, to purpose.

Why are we here?

Why are we doing business?

And we want to do business
for the long term.

Values are part
of a purpose of a company.

John Browne is a leading voice

in today's

new corporation movement.

When he was CEO

of the world's second largest
oil company,

he professed
deep environmental beliefs

while achieving record profits
and meteoric growth.

Basically, for the first time,

an oil company executive
stepped forward to say

"Global warming is a problem."

It set BP apart.

I think people
are much more convinced now,

at least around the world,

that there is a real case
to take precautionary action

to avoid carbon concentrations

going to beyond
a critical level

in the atmosphere...

My sense is that John Browne's
concerns are genuine,

his interest in the environment
is genuine,

his concern for workers

and for people's safety,

theoretically, is genuine,

but those desires
are just inherently conflicting

with the need to make money,

because turning a profit
for those corporations

is always going to come first.

I need

an ambulance and E.M.T.s
right now!

There's people
trapped in the trailer!

They need help!

In 2005,
when I was CEO of BP,

we had a terrible tragedy.

15 people died
in a refinery explosion

in Texas City.

This is the second time

people have died at this plant

in less than a year.

In that time,

it has been fined

for more than
14 safety violations.

All of us at BP
are very deeply saddened

by the loss of life

and injury suffered
by so many people.

After Texas City,

we were at pains--

at pains to say safety
must never be compromised

for financial performance.

We were very concerned
to make sure that safety,

operational safety,

process safety,

took primacy.

It's ridiculous
for John Browne to suggest

that he had adequately
addressed process safety

in the wake
of the Texas City Refinery.

It was less than a year later

his company had a spill
in Alaska,

on oil pipelines,

which, it turns out,
were not maintained.

Technicians at Prudoe Bay

warned it was understaffed,

lacking in routine maintenance,

leak-prone, and vulnerable
to explosions...

There was
a specific decision

to save money
by not running corrosion tests

in those pipelines.

It's the same kind of thing

that led to
the Texas City explosion.

Yet BP claimed

it had learned its lesson
from Texas City.

In 2007, I left BP,

and I thought, "This is great.

This company has got it."

What was so depressing to me

was that yet again
people died...

and while I wasn't there,

and I didn't know
what had happened,

I could see
some terrible echoes of history.

While John Browne had left BP,

some things hadn't changed.

The poor decisions that led
to the Deepwater Horizon

echo and track what John Browne
instituted in the company

a decade or two before.

John Browne pushed
the largest cost cut

that I've heard of

at any corporation

in any kind of industry,

not just the oil industry.

You can't do that

without cutting corners
on maintenance of equipment,

without pushing timetables.

That's the culture
that he built.

When given that choice
between doing good,

and doing well for your company,

the fact that
publicly-held companies

have an obligation to deliver
to their shareholders,

making those profits

will always be
the highest priority.

Those trend lines are just
headed in opposite directions,

and I think they always will be.

We are a--
just to make it clear--

a for-profit institution...

...and we are making
an investment in Detroit.

Remember Jamie Dimon?

From JP Morgan Chase?

He's the CEO
who wants to save Detroit.

Detroit was devastated
by the 2008 financial crisis.

A third of its homes
were abandoned.

Over the next five years,

it spiraled
towards rock bottom.

When the 2008 financial crisis

hammered North America,

long-suffering Detroit
was hit especially hard.

Detroit is officially
the largest city in history

to file for bankruptcy.

After bankruptcy,

Jamie Dimon and his bank
stepped in

with vast amounts of capital.

Why Detroit?

So obviously
it's good for the bank,

but it's part humanity.

You're trying to help your city
and your people come back,

and recover from what have been,
basically, a terrible 20 years.

Jamie Dimon
wants to rescue Detroit,

but what's misleading

is he wants America to believe

that he,

and, by implication,
JP Morgan Chase Bank,

are somehow the good guys,

that they are leading us

in a direction
we ought to be going in,

without--

without any memory

that he and the bank
caused, in part,

a huge recession

that wrecked the lives
of millions,

tens of millions of people.

At one point,

the market fell
as if down a well.

The NASDAQ,
everything and more

has been completely
wiped out...

Three of the five
biggest independent firms

on Wall Street

have now disappeared...

Major sectors

of America's financial system

are at risk of shutting down.

The 2008 financial crisis

was the result
of corporate misconduct

and reckless speculation.

That malfeasance nearly
destroyed the global economy.

It cost the American economy
about 20 trillion dollars

in terms of lost housing value,

lost productivity
from the recession.

Millions of people
lost their jobs.

Millions of others
were thrown out of their homes.

People were really hurt.

The nation's biggest bank,

JP Morgan Chase,

has agreed to
a $13-billion settlement

with the U.S. Government

for misleading investors
and mortgage agencies

about the safety
of mortgage-backed securities

it sold ahead of
the financial crisis.

That would be the largest fine

ever paid by a single bank

to settle civil charges,

yet doesn't even resolve
a possible criminal case.

But JP Morgan Chase's caring image

helped mask
its self-interested nature.

I think we have to acknowledge

that as a kind of
private sector propaganda,

it has been
remarkably successful.

This is Anand Giridharadas,

an expert
on how corporate elites

cloak profit-making in virtue.

When you have
someone like Jamie Dimon,

who is running an institution

that paid fines for its role

in helping to cause
a financial crisis

that wiped out communities--

we're talking about obliterated
certain communities--

when you have someone like that

who then turns around and says,

"We gotta save Detroit,"

what's so amazing
is this kind of two-step

that this plutocratic group
has been able to pull off.

You first create conditions

in which people
in a city like Detroit

are shattered by
your speculation decisions,

and then you have the gall

to market yourself
to those folks

as their--
as their Christ.

We were here
in the darkest moments

for everybody, at all times.

We didn't run,
we didn't hide...

...and we figure, you know,

if we can help in Detroit,

you can help anywhere.

We participate in this game

that allows the very people
abetting harm to our society,

or actively harming our society,

to reinvent themselves
as saviours.

But that's part
of a larger game

corporations now play.

Making feel-good promises
with bright smiles,

appearing to be different
than what they really are.

If the new corporation
had a playbook,

what might it look like?

What would its key plays be?

I am here with Bill Gates.

I'd love you to tell
our readers

what the heck
creative capitalism is.

Can we take some of the caring
and innovation power,

the resources of corporations,

and get them to focus
more of that

on the needs of the poorest?

Bill Gates

put his idea
of Creative Capitalism to work,

pouring billions
into investments in Africa,

including a multi-million-dollar stake

in a start-up company

called Bridge International
Academies.

Good morning, class.

Good morning, teacher.

How are you?

We are fine,
thank you, teacher,

and how are you?

I'm fine, thank you.

Bridge is a flagship

of creative capitalism.

We serve children
living in poverty.

Even people
who are living in poverty,

they are earning cash,

and they're earning cash
for a reason.

They're earning it
to be able to spend it

on things they need
in their lives.

Five years ago,

my co-founder, Shannon, and I

decided that an aggressive
start-up company

that could figure out

how to profitably deliver
education at a high quality

could radically disrupt
the status quo in education,

ultimately creating

what could be a billion-dollar
new global education company.

Private schools for the poor

is a $51-billion-a-year market

no one's even thought about.

In the global south,

what we've seen is the emergence
of chains of schools,

for-profit schools,

to compete against
the public education system.

One of the biggest players

is Bridge International
Academies.

Venture capitalists
invest in Bridge schools,

Pearson, the World Bank,
Zuckerberg, Gates,

and the list goes on.

We hear of creative capitalism,

but that's promoting a world

where the market
would dictate terms

with respect to the provision
of education.

We take lessons

that other large
global service providers use,

like McDonalds or Starbucks.

We build for scale,

we systematize, we standardize.

We call this
vertically-integrated platform

our "Academy in a Box."

What is so interesting

about this social-business thing

is, on the surface,
it seems incredibly noble.

They're saying

money-making should not be
the sole goal of a business,

it should also have
a social purpose,

but what it is also saying

is that the kinds of change

that we ought to pursue

are the kinds of change

that kicks something back
to the winners.

But those interested
financial reasons

are good for the world.

If we succeed in serving
10 million children,

which I know we will,

it's still
only about 1% of children

who need improved services

in their government
and community schools.

So I hope we not only get there,

but far transcede it,

and in so doing,

be a good partner
for our shareholders,

and those who have entrusted us
with their capital,

to try to make a big impact.

This is colonialism,

pure and simple.

Fundamentally, Bridge is saying

"Give us your education system,

we will take care of it."

Public education
is one of the basic commitments

of a democratic society.

Education is not non-political,

it's not apolitical.

You teach a set of values
when you're teaching.

You cannot rely
on Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates,

the World Bank, to take over

and provide the education

that you should be
providing yourself.

Bridge is in business.

When you want to utilize
poor citizens of this world

as a source of income.

They're making money

out of utilizing
unqualified teachers.

We believe
everyone is a teacher,

and everyone could be.

There are certain core skills
you need to have.

You've gotta be able to read.

It might seem like a low bar,

but you have to start somewhere.

It's true,

Bridge teachers know how to read

but they're required to do

little more in thier classrooms

because they follow scripted les

read word-for-word
from a tablet.

It's telling you
all of these different ways

to behave.

Move away from the board,

circulate in the classroom,

give them one-on-one coaching.

You cannot have teachers
who behave as robots,

who follow a scripted curriculum

that tells you walk three steps
to the blackboard,

walk around the classroom,

and that's just...

A teacher ought to be
a natural teacher.

From an investment
point of view,

that because of a tragic failure
of our existing systems,

there's an incredible need
for services

to solve these problems.

People have just kind of said,

"Well, hopefully,
the government will fix it,"

but fix it with what?

Government can't fix problems.

It's a defining idea
of the new corporation,

a key play in its playbook,

and it goes back
nearly half a century.

In this present crisis,

government is not the solution
to our problem.

Government is the problem.

We believe

that government should be
severely limited

in the way in which they say

that they're entitled
to impose their judgement

on what the people want.

If you look at
the real problems of poverty

and denial of freedom
to the people in this country,

almost every single one of them

is a result
of government action.

In the 1980s,

corporations were frustrated

by the limits on profits

that they felt were
imposed upon them

by the combination
of labour unions,

increasing regulation,

taxation,

and that combination of things
led to a kind of rebellion--

one that wouldn't
overthrow democracy

in some overt way

but choke it, leash it,

tone it down,

and, above all,
replace it with markets.

Corporations formed alliances

with governments
they had helped elect,

governments that were in fact
anti-government,

and that happily lifted limits
on corporate freedom.

Profits soared,
but a price was paid,

and not by corporations.

What you get is this profound
anti-government program

to create deficits

through the combination
of tax cuts

and military spending,

so as to make it impossible

to use government in a positive
and constructive way,

to deal with
our social problems.

Mr. President,

on behalf of the business
leaders here in the room,

let me particularly
congratulate you

for the historic tax reform
passed last month,

greatly reducing the tax burden
of U.S. companies,

providing a tremendous boost

to the global economy.

I cannot wait to sign
these giant tax cuts.

It'll be
the largest tax cuts by far

in the history of our country.

JP Morgan Chase,

they just announced earnings,

and they were incredible.

Where are you?

They were very substantial.

Will you say,

"Thank you, Mr. President,"
at least? Huh?

"Thank you, Mr. President,"
may be in order.

Apparently, he believes
he played a strong role

in JP Morgan's
blow-out quarter.

Best profit for any bank,
ever in history.

Corporate profits

are the highest they've been
in decades.

Fast forward a few months,

global pandemic,

the rich keep getting richer,

and our friends
on the other side said,

"What do we do now?

Let's do a tax cut!"

36 million people unemployed,

40% of families

who have a worker that makes
$40,000 a year or less

lose their job last month,

four million people
didn't pay their rent,

and the Republican Party says,

"We don't have
any money to help you!"

Are you kidding me?

Where do you guys live?

And while
corporations lobby for

and profit from tax cuts
at home,

they further avoid taxes

by stashing their profits
abroad.

The corporate elite
is best positioned

to use the system that we have
to their advantage

and one manifestation of that
is tax havens.

Every year,

corporations squirrel away
billions of dollars

in tax havens,

and when that's combined
with tax cuts,

guess what happens?

60 of some of America's
biggest companies

reportedly paid
no federal income tax for 2018

despite earning
billions of dollars in profits.

This is my first time
at Davos,

and, uh, and I find it quite
a bewildering experience,

to be honest.

I mean, 1,500 private jets
flown in here

to hear
Sir David Attenborough speak

about, you know,
how we're wrecking the planet,

and, uh, I mean,
I hear people talking

the language of participation,
and justice,

and equality, and transparency,

but then, I mean, almost no one
raises the real issue

of tax avoidance, right,

and of the rich just not paying
their fair share.

We gotta be talking
about taxes.

That's it, taxes, taxes, taxes.

All the rest is bullshit,

in my--in my opinion.

Government used to have
a lot of power

to extract wealth
in the form of taxes,

and then be able
to use that wealth

for the betterment
of the society as a whole,

but what's happened now

is that we have given
more power to corporations

to control their wealth

and to take it
out of the tax system.

So what happens
as a result of that?

First of all,

companies and rich people
get a lot richer,

not paying those taxes
you might've been paying.

Second thing that happens

is the government
has less money.

The government's capacity
is sort of contracted,

and then social problems
start to grow,

in part because
the government has less money.

Now with that background,

rich people step onto the scene

and say, "Oh, my gosh,
this is a shame.

This situation we see here
is a shame.

We got
all these social problems,

and government, my gosh,

the government should be
solving this stuff,

but it isn't.

That is embarrassing.

Well, I'm happy
to solve these problems,

but of course
when we do solve it,

we're going to do it my way.

We're going
to privatize the solution."

The privatizer's blueprint,

often also called
"Starve the Beast."

You create
a crisis of confidence...

How much money do we need
to be investing right now

in the United States
in water infrastructure?

By 2020,

44% of all water infrastructure
in the United States

will be classified as poor,
very poor, or beyond life.

You deny resources

for quality public services...

In the 1970s,

there were a lot of pools
of free federal money.

That has really,
no pun, dried up.

...and lo and behold,

the answer is privatization.

What we believe

is that private industry
is part of the answer,

which is very consistent

with what
the President's plan is.

American Water Works

is one of the world's largest
water corporations.

It takes over
public water systems,

and runs them for profit,

and around the world,

there are many other companies
doing the same thing.

It's an absolutely

terrifying notion,

privatization of water.

Moving in exactly
the wrong direction.

Access to potable,
clean drinking water

is a fundamental human right.

It's just insidious

that the corporate mind
could even conceive

or imagine the notion
of privatizing it.

Corporations have figured out

that there are really
big business opportunities

in these public sectors,

in part, because
they've been walled off

from corporate influence
in the past.

The private sector is voracious

in seeking to privatize
almost everything.

First,
privatize government services

as much as possible...

and also the seizure
and the commodification

of the public commons--

your parks,
your public schools,

your streets.

How can we get more money
out of the public commons?

The for-profit motivation

is always a very bad reason
for providing public services.

There's a conflict of interest

between whether you're going
to pay off the shareholders,

or whether you're going
to invest in the public system.

Many responsibilities
and obligations must be public

in order to maintain
equal access

to the basic
necessities of life.

A healthy democratic society
has a thriving private sector,

and also
a thriving public sector,

and as we permit
the private sector

to encroach upon

and to, literally,
absorb the responsibilities

and obligations
of a democratic society,

we lose our democracy.

And the rise
of big-tech corporations

is now accelerating
this process.

For example, in schools.

Not only in Africa,
but elsewhere, too.

Corporations have decided

that they should remake
education

by using technology.

They want to have
teacher-less classrooms...

but the teacher
is the single most important

and expensive part of education,

and the tech industry's dream,

if the teacher is removed
from the equation,

then you can cut costs
dramatically.

These companies
monopolize everything.

First of all,
monopolize their sector,

and the next thing is to look,
"Where's left?"

These giant corporations
are frantically searching

for new sources of profit

because it's drying up.

They say, "We need to take
the education system,

take the health-care system,

take the transport system,

and own it,

or we die."

Silicon Valley
is the new Rome of our time.

The valley has become
this extraordinary power centre

that has a huge say

over what kind of media
and information we have

in a democracy,

over, you know, frankly,

how many of our biggest
problems are solved,

over how election campaigns
are run,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Technology's neutral,

and, in many ways, it's great,

but there's a difference

between a technology,

and allowing
a few powerful players

to manipulate it
for their own ends.

So we've gone
from this wide-open world

that opened up
all of these possibilities

for people to create things,

to share information,
to share ideas,

and it has collapsed
into these walled gardens

that are controlled
by a few very powerful players.

We're seeing
Amazon, for example,

gobbling up every kind
of business in sight.

They're interested
in getting into pharmaceuticals,

and they're making a big move
into food.

They capture
about half of everything

that Americans spend online,

and they're growing into
all these different directions.

They control 35% of the world's
cloud-computing capacity.

They're building out shipping
and logistics infrastructure

that is scaled to take on
the postal service and UPS,

and, increasingly,

they are the intermediary
for all of our smart devices,

Alexa, their voice system,
is 70% of the market,

and on it goes.

They're making investments
in finance, in healthcare,

in hit movies
and television shows.

Amazon is increasingly
setting the rules

for what happens
in its marketplace,

and pretending like
that's a real market,

but, of course it's not.

You know, that's
a direct threat to democracy,

a very fundamental threat
to democracy.

Though elected by no one,

corporations are now starting
to be treated like governments.

We're joined now live

by the world's first ever
tech ambassador.

Can I start simply
by asking you

what exactly
does a tech ambassador do?

Well, we're basically

trying to treat technology
and the tech companies

in a way which is similar

to the way we treat
a bilateral relationship

with countries
all over the world.

The value of their stocks

is more or less the same
as the GDP of France,

and we think that
that is being translated

into influence
over political affairs.

We think it is necessary

to treat them
in a way which is similar

to the way
we treat other countries.

A lot of folks in the valley

believe that the companies
they are building

are kind of replacements
of government.

I think if we don't push back

against the kind of agenda
that these companies have,

we're going to live in a world

in which they are governing us
privately

through the profit motive.

But governing us.

The deal that the corporations
want from us

is to hand everything to them,

all the value to them,

and we get
a little bit of utility.

We get usefulness.

It becomes easier to study,

or easier to get to work,

or easier to take a health test.

That is a dangerous deal,

because nobody can guarantee

what is going to be done
with the information.

We're handing our data

with no checks, no balances,
no control over it.

I think that's going to be
one of the new challenges

of life in the 21st Century.

I'm going to call them

the super social media
corporations,

the entities that really run
our lives right now.

The scope of their reach
cannot be underestimated.

They know everything about us.

Every single aspect
of what we do,

who we do it with,
where we do it, what we buy,

is a goldmine for aggregators.

It lets them mold their policies
and their products,

predicting how you are going to live

the rest of your life.

They're trying to influence
the decisions that you make

from now to when you die,

so that it will best serve,
ultimately,

the corporate bottom line.

Technology provides us

such a seductive fantasy.

Our smart phones,
our data driven systems,

our social-media platforms,

they are all designed to conceal

the true cost
of these technologies

to our society as a whole.

Privacy is usually
the value that we use

to think through these issues,

but for me,
it's not about privacy,

it's about control.

The drive to make data
profitable

leads these companies
to say who we are,

and define who we are
to other people.

Let me use a real-life example
of a hiring algorithm.

You'll do an interview.

They'll analyze
your video footage,

and they'll say,

"You challenge the status quo.

You are a change agent.

Don't hire this person,

because they are more likely
to cause trouble at work."

As far as the algorithm
is concerned,

you are not a human being,

you're just a collection
of data points,

and this is one of the dangers
that we face today,

because we are now saying

we need to stop
using human reason,

and we need to rely more

on these kinds of algorithmic
decision-making systems.

We are increasingly
surrendering our capacity

to rely on human experience

and to trust in each other.

So, the question

that these technologies
are really raising for us

is what does it mean
to be human?

And this kind of technology
of strangers

is one of the ways

in which we are moving away
from the genuine heritage

of the Enlightenment.

We're taught
that it is all about me.

Narcissism,
the cult of the self,

the idea that consumption

can somehow help us
overcome our alienation,

make us important...

I thought, you know,

what better way
to cure the darkness,

than to go shopping.

You know,
help stimulate the economy.

These were all...

I hesitate the word "values,"

but these were all consciously
instilled in the public.

It upends
traditional values of thrift,

self-effacement,

communitarianism,

and replaces them
with the values

that we now define
as American values,

but which should properly
be called corporate values.

In recent years,

we've drifted,
almost without realizing it,

from having a market economy

to becoming a market society.

The difference is this.

A market economy is a tool,

a valuable and effective tool

for organizing
productive activity.

But a market society is a place

where almost everything
is up for sale.

We are so steeped
in this commodification

that it's hard to distinguish
between being a consumer

and being a citizen.

I'm not much of a believer
in political citizenship.

I actually believe much more
in the power of the marketplace.

This is Richard Edelman,

one the world's most influential
business gurus.

I think companies

actually have filled a void

left by government.

Business is at the top rank.

Government and media really are

at the back end
of the trust rank.

These are big changes

in reliability of business
as potential "good actor."

It's a brilliant strategy.

They're going to present
themselves as good actors,

and use that
as part of their image

and as part of their branding.

When we see a big corporation
doing something,

it creates a sense of hope

that maybe we can solve
the climate crisis,

or inequality,

or other kinds of problems.

We maybe even think
of their huge power

as being a plus,

because we know that
the scale of these challenges

are so big,

and we feel so powerless
and frustrated

about the ability
of our government systems

to actually solve them,

that we start to sort of
put our faith in corporations,

but of course,
in the process of doing that,

we're going further
down the path

that led us here.

I grew up in the 1950s,

and at that time,

there was a sense
that our society

would continually progress
towards greater equality

and greater opportunity,

that there would continue
to be social mobility

for those at the bottom.

The average pay for a CEO
in the 1950s

was 20 times that
of the average worker.

Today the average pay of a CEO

is 270 times

that of the average worker.

In some cases,
that gap is much greater.

For example,

Jamie Dimon makes more than
1,000 times the salary

of one of
his lowest-paid employees.

Mr. Dimon,

you're an expert
on financial statements,

and you run
a $2.6-trillion-dollar bank.

I went to Monster.com

and I found a job
in my hometown of Irvine

at JP Morgan Chase.

It pays $16.50 an hour...

This is
U.S. congresswoman Katie Porter

providing an example
of a hypothetical employee,

a single mother
working as a teller

at one of Jamie Dimon's banks.

... she rents
a one-bedroom apartment.

She and her daughter
sleep together

in the same room.

In Irvine, California,

that average
one-bedroom apartment

is going to be $1,600.

She spends $100 on utilities...

Congresswoman Porter

itemized typical monthly expenses,

and showed they greatly exceed
the employee's salary.

My question for you,
Mr. Dimon,

is how should she manage
this budget shortfall

while she is working full-time
at your bank?

I, uh, don't know that
all your numbers are accurate.

That number is a starter--
is generally a starter job.

She is a starting employee.

She has a six-year-old child.

This is her first job.

You can get those jobs
out of high school,

and she may have my job
one day.

But the widening gap

between CEOs
and their employees,

is just one symptom
of rising inequality

more generally.

Right now
in the United States,

the richest country
on the planet,

half of American families

couldn't pay a $400 bill

that landed on their doorstep

without going into debt

or selling something.

That's because
corporate executives

and corporate lobbyists

are constantly able
to change the rules of the game

in the favour of the people
who are already wealthy

and powerful,

making it harder
to form a union,

making it easier
for mega-corporations

to shut out competition
from smaller businesses,

slashing the taxes

on wealthy people
and corporations,

and shifting
more of the responsibility

on working-class people.

The result
is economic inequality.

It's a real moral outrage,

and it can't be dealt with
separate from race and gender.

We can't really deal with
these inequalities separately

because they're all
so interwoven.

The Black and brown people

who are impacted
by police brutality,

women who are impacted
by sexual harassment

in the workplace,

the enormous numbers of workers

who are struggling
with poverty and homelessness,

and all the degeneration
that we see under capitalism

for no fault of theirs.

We're talking about
a global economy

that, for all the wealth
that was generated last year,

a trillion dollars
of that new wealth

went to just 500 individuals.

I know you have a lot of--

I'd love to call her up

and have a conversation
about her financial affairs

and see if we can be helpful.

See if you can find a way

for her to live on less
than the minimum

that I've described?

Just be helpful.

The 1% and 0.01%

is a group of folks

who talk an extraordinary game,

and also act
an extraordinary game,

of trying to help out
in an age of inequality,

and who are willing to do
absolutely anything to help

except stepping off the backs

of the working people
of this country

who have been screwed

and, and, and passed over
by four decades worth of change.

There's a great quote

that was attributed
to Justice Brandeis

that said
you can have democracy,

or you can have
large accumulations of wealth,

but you can't have both.

That wealth gives them
a tremendous amount of power,

both in promoting
our political leaders,

in promoting
a legislative agenda,

in every aspect of our society.

If I want to run a campaign

that is entirely funded

by corporate political
action committees,

is there anything
that legally prevents me

from doing that?

No.

So now I'm elected,
now I'm in,

I've got the power to draft,
lobby, and shape the laws

that govern
the United States of America.

Are there any limits
on the laws that I can write

or influence?

There's no limit.

So there's none,

so I can be totally funded
by big pharma,

come in, write big pharma laws,

and there's no limits to that
whatsoever?

That's right.

Is there anything
preventing me

from holding stocks, say,
in an oil or gas company,

and then writing laws
to deregulate that industry

and potentially cause
the stock value to soar,

and accrue a lot of money
in that time?

-You could do that, yes.
-Oh, okay, great.

I think
we've seen the disappearance

of independent governments,

with the rise of corporate rule.

We have seen more and more
takeover of government,

takeover of electoral processes.

The problem is
a corporate system

and a political system,

where governments
see their main role

as facilitating
private corporations

to basically do
whatever the hell.

Nothing more
starkly illustrates this

than our Federal Treasurer
picking up a lump of coal

and carrying it
around Parliament House.

Mr. Speaker.

This is coal.

Don't be afraid,
don't be scared.

The Treasurer
knows the rule on props!

It's coal.

Mr. Speaker, those opposite

have an ideological,
pathological fear of coal.

Affordable energy

is what
Australian businesses need

to remain competitive.

This is Scott Morrison.

He later became
Prime Minister.

He heads a group
of high-level politicians

with deep ties
to the major coal companies.

Take note of this one-- Adani.

We'll return to it later.

What's happening in Australia

is just one part
of a larger global story.

It's become accepted
that corporations are in charge.

Governments are incredibly subservient

to corporate rule.

In the United States,

we've seen,
under the Trump administration,

the wholesale corporate takeover
of government

on a scale
with no historic precedent.

It's beyond the wildest dreams
of the corporate sector,

especially in the area of deregulation.

I pledged to eliminate

two unnecessary regulations

for every one new regulation.

We have succeeded
beyond our highest expectations.

Instead of two for one...

we have cut
22 burdensome regulations

for every one new rule.

I'm willing to bet
that those are made-up numbers.

But the issue in regulation
or deregulation

is not the number.

I mean,
that's really absurd.

What you want to know
is, you know,

do you want to have
another financial crisis?

Well, if you do,

let's get rid
of the financial regulations.

Corporations have said, repeatedly,

"We are responsible now,

we understand
the public interest,

so we don't have
to be regulated,

we can self-regulate."

Well, they've got obvious
self-interest in saying that.

The reason
they can't self-regulate

is that that's not
what they're about.

They're about trying
to make profit.

Routinely,

when government
regulation fails,

companies in the pursuit of profit

endanger people,

and that's not
a hypothetical.

It means people get poisoned,

they get diseases,
they get sick.

Corners will be cut,

and people will be injured,
and people will be killed.

We see it
over and over again.

Every industry
has fought regulation.

They all resist oversight
by the government

because regulation increases
their cost of operating,

but I've never seen
an industry that's fought it

more than
the oil and gas industry...

Remember this?

This, too, was a consequence
of deregulation.

As a result

of the Deepwater Horizon
catastrophe,

nearly 200 million gallons
of crude oil

spilled into
the Gulf of Mexico,

making it one of the worst

environmental and deregulation disasters

in history.

But deregulation
wasn't the only problem.

BP was also
recklessly breaking the law.

And they're not alone
in being corporate lawbreakers.

Corporations will certainly do things

that are wrong,
that are unethical,

if they're legal
and permissible.

And all the empirical evidence

says that they will also
violate the law routinely,

either intentionally

or because they'll just
go over the lines,

if there's profits to be made.

This opioid crisis is a killer,

and it's a killer
that does not discriminate.

Lives are being destroyed

as corporations profit
from their playbook moves...

...as they play to win.

These corporate
forces have no limits

and these forces have...

put the very human species
itself at risk.

The giant
ecocidal corporations--

they're literally playing casino
with life on Earth.

Their logic of profits,

their process of profits

is the death of nature.

Whenever you mess with nature,

you don't know for sure
what the exact impact will be.

We chop down forests,

we bring livestock
into new regions,

and we spread
these new diseases.

We're at the source
of this problem.

The major cities
all around the world

are vulnerable to a disease
arriving in the city

and then causing
a major epidemic.

Again, we're seeing that
more and more.

The rate at which
new disease epidemics

are originating,

many of them moving
from forests and wild species

to humans,

is partly because of

corporate invasions
into ecosystems

and violence to animals.

The attack on other species

is bouncing back
as an attack on us.

All of Italy
is now effectively a red zone.

Warnings from Sao Paulo are dire.

In the United States,

disaster's been declared
in all 50 states.

When the coronavirus hit

in the spring of 2020,

it laid bare

the unjust and dangerous
faultlines

of corporate capitalism.

African-Americans

have been hit hardest
by the virus.

Despite for accounting for
14% of Michigan's population,

they represent 41%
of its COVID victims,

I'm praying
that's it's not...

I haven't been in contact
with nobody that has it.

We got a possible COVID,

52-year-old male.

10 minutes out.

I'll be honest with you,
I can barely keep track.

This is the culmination

of decades
of tilting policy,

tilting public resources

in favour of
the biggest corporations.

Fewer hospitals,
fewer hospital beds,

less capacity to be able
to be able to respond

in an emergency like this.

Other systems are also
breaking down right now.

Essential workers,

people who are on the frontlines

of getting our groceries
to us,

are really putting
their lives on the line

without any kind of real backing

from the companies
that employ them.

This is partly the product

of the absence
of labour protections,

unions, and so on.

What we're seeing
is a continuation

of the ways that corporations
have undermined

ordinary people's ability

to have any say
over their lives.

This is actually not a crisis
full of novelties,

it's a crisis
full of revelation.

For example,
the same exact dynamic

of the 2008 financial crisis
bailout,

where the most powerful
gained power

as a net result
of those bailouts,

that is literally happening
again-- maybe worse.

As ordinary people
suffered

the despair and harsh effects
of economic breakdown,

giant corporations
were thrown a lifeline.

Madame President,
I have an update.

At last, we have a deal.

What did
the Senate Majority fight for?

One of the largest
corporate bailouts,

with as few strings
as possible,

in American history.

Shameful!

The greed of that fight
is wrong,

for crumbs
for our families,

and the option that we have

is to either let them suffer
with nothing

or to allow this greed
and billions of dollars,

which will be leveraged
into trillions of dollars,

to contribute

to the largest income
inequality gap

in our future.

Once again,

the very wealthy
big corporations

did extraordinarily well.

Over the last year and a half,

they've spent
over a trillion dollars

buying back their shares
of stock

to artificially boost
their share prices,

so that the top executives
and major investors

would benefit.

They could've used
that trillion dollars

as a cushion
against the big rainy day,

the storm
that we now have.

They didn't.

Instead,
they got bailed out!

It's socialism for the rich,
corporate socialism,

but also the harshest
form of capitalism

for most working people
and the poor.

The crisis is highlighting

that we're absolutely unprepared

to deal with disasters

like what we're facing
right now,

and we also have this other,
even bigger looming crisis,

which is
the climate catastrophe.

That's not going anywhere.

It's no exaggeration to say

that the greed economy
is killing us.

It's killing off species.

It's depleting
our natural resources.

It's poisoning our people.

A handful of corporations

are allowed to put
next quarter's profits

ahead of
the next generation.

When our children
and grandchildren

look back in the history books

and ask the question,

"Why didn't we stop
the crisis of climate change?"

The only answer
we'll have for them

is that it was profitable
for a handful of corporations

to keep polluting
our planet.

The changes
that we fear are coming faster

than anybody thought.

The impacts from them

are going to be far worse
than we thought.

It's also going to change

the entire global dynamic
around equality.

The world
is going to divide in ways

that we have
a difficult time imagining now.

We're headed for a world

that sees a protected,
privileged few

surrounded by
an immensely impoverished

majority of
the global population.

With the impacts
of climate change

now in plain view,

fossil-fuel companies

have stopped actively denying
that's it's happening.

They've discovered

that a better strategy
for them now

in the age of
active climate breakdown,

is to charm us all

into believing that
they're part of the solution,

saying, "Okay, we're going
to invest in renewables,

but meanwhile,

we have to keep using
fossil fuels for a long time,

so, you know, we can use
lighter fuels, like natural gas,

but we have to be realistic."

It is impossible--

impossible--

to displace carbon fully
for a very long time.

Gas is a very good
carbon fuel.

You have to see this

as one more arrow

in the large quiver
of delay tactics

and ways to preserve

what's really the core
of their business,

not the core of
the best interest of society.

We need to transition

to the cleanest form
of carbon-free energy

as quickly as possible.

If we were to do this
by tomorrow,

it wouldn't be fast enough.

I mean,
we'd just be stupid,

if we looked to the coal and gas
and oil industry

for a clean-energy future.

That's not what they do.

They have a business model.

They're going to pursue
that business model

until the end of time,

and they may do that

if we're not able
to control them.

The fossil-fuel industry

actually doesn't plan
to stop increasing production

and increasing extraction

anytime soon.

In fact,
they're doubling down on it.

Their goal is to extract
as much as possible

before it becomes
just completely unviable

for them to do so.

The fossil-fuel industry

is ramping up
new mega-projects.

Some companies
are pursuing profits

from even the dirtiest fuels.

Like Adani.

Around 2011,

there were plans
for nine new coal export ports

up and down
the Great Barrier Reef Coast.

Adani's proposed Carmichael Mine

would be a 60-million-ton-a-year
thermal coal mine

in the middle
of the Galilee Basin.

It's the largest new proposed

coal project
in the world.

40 kilometres by 13 kilometres,

entirely encompassed

within Wangan
and Jagalingou country.

It is on the doorstep

of the Great Barrier Reef,

an already very stressed
and vulnerable ecosystem,

and what we're gonna see

is 500 more coal ships

every year,

trudging through
a stressed reef

that, what scientists
are telling us,

is already half-dead.

The Adani Carmichael Mine
would drive global warming,

it would destroy habitat
for endangered species,

it would destroy groundwater,

and it would disenfranchise
Wangan and Jagalingou,

traditional owners
of that country.

Wangan and Jagalingou,

we're a problem for Adani,

so they're gonna do
whatever they can

to try and get rid
of that problem.

We know that the mechanisms
of the state

line-up to work for mining
companies and corporations,

essentially to roll over
aboriginal people,

to get past us.

The government and the state

and the corporations

devise ways, saying,

"Oh, we want
to put this mine in,

we just want to do it,

we just want to put
this pipeline in,"

and "oh, these people
are in our way,

we need to remove them."

You know,
they use their security,

they use our own aboriginal
police against us,

they use every means they can.

To indigenous people,

it is clearly
a life-and-death struggle.

That's what you're witnessing
happening around the world--

this destructive
corporate agenda

that is completely
out of control.

When a society
begins to understand

that that good job that they had
or their parents had

is never coming back,

that they are going to be
working 70 hours a week,

and still be consumed
by crippling debt peonage...

that all of their dreams

that Oprah
and everyone else has told them

can come to fruition

are never going to arrive...

and they scream for vengeance
and moral renewal,

and they look

for the internal enemies
that have thwarted

the possibility

of their own aggrandizement.

So then
you turn on the vulnerable.

You turn on Muslims,

undocumented workers,
homosexuals,

feminists, intellectuals,
liberals...

...all of those forces

that you are told have thwarted

the possibilities
that were your "right" to have.

What you see
is a frustration

that grew out of
economic disempowerment,

turning into
a new wave of hate.

There's no question

that a lot of people
around the world

have a feeling
that we've lived in this age

that is incredibly abundant
in innovation

but short on progress,

if progress means most people's
lives getting better.

I'm right-wing
and I'm proud of it!

It's only a matter of time

before people want
to shatter the system.

There's no guarantee

when people rise up
to shatter a system,

whether you get Medicare for all

or a wall
on the Southern border.

Build the wall!
Build the wall!

It's akin
to the fascist movements

of the 1920 and '30s,

where the alienated
can feel a sense of empowerment

by identifying
with "the great leader,"

often in these big rallies.

But it really is
like snapshots out of the 1930s,

this kind of politics

of hatred and reaction
and division.

Donald Trump
wasn't the problem.

Donald Trump was

the symptom of the problem.

The problem

is a breakdown
in the social cohesion

that makes democracy
and civil society possible.

And that breakdown
in social cohesion

in turn was created

by 40 years
of rising economic inequality,

by the evisceration
of the middle class.

Collectively,
the nation lashed out

by electing the candidate
who was lashing out, too.

Fuck you!

Go fucking make my tortilla,
motherfucker!

And build that fuckin' wall,
for me!

Trump!

This angry right-wing eruption

completely agreed

with the free market
fundamentalism

of this new order,

and represented themselves

as a people

whose whiteness,
whose traditional values,

whose Christianity,
whose nativism

should be at the heart
of the country's concerns.

Let them call you "racist."

Let them
call you "xenophobes..."

Let them call you "nativist."

Wear it as a badge of honour,

because every day,

we get stronger
and they get weaker.

Parts of the population

are actually leaning
toward "strongmen"--

Donald Trump.

a large part
of the Turkish population

is supporting Erdogan,

or we're seeing it
in Hungary with Orban.

We are proud to stand together
with United States

on fighting
against illegal migration,

on terrorism,

and to protect and, um,

help the Christian communities
all around the world.

All of these right-wing regimes

represent a continuation
of privatization,

of the destruction of welfare,

undermining labour unions,
et cetera.

Unchained by the kinds
of restrictions

that workers' rights posed,

or that environmental
protections posed,

or that even structures for
providing for the poor posed.

So now, corporations
have freer reign.

Money has replaced the vote.

America is dominated by
a system of legalized bribery.

Our three branches
of government

are wholly captive
to corporate power.

So you have corporate forces

that purport to pay fealty
to electoral politics,

the constitution,

the iconography and language
of American patriotism,

and yet, internally,

have rendered the citizen
impotent.

I don't think
that you can honestly grasp

the forces we're up against,

including the unraveling
of the ecosystem,

and not be filled
with despair.

The greatest existential crisis
of our time

is to at once understand
the reality before us,

and then find the capacity
to resist.

So much of our lives

is about the stories
we tell ourselves.

And corporations
have done a very effective job

at defining the limits
of possibility

and defining what we can
expect out of life.

So if we believe

that we are
in a dog-eat-dog world,

and this patriarchal-machismo
view of reality,

then that constrains
how we act and how we behave.

Social movements are created
out of a contagious mood

and a new tactic.

Part of what
that new tactic does

is it wakes people up,

and part of what that mood does
is gets them to dream again.

In 2011,

mass movements for change
swept across the globe

in the aftermath
of the 2008 financial crisis.

There was
a cycle of struggles--

sometimes called
"the movement of squares."

It starts in Tunisia...

...and passes to Egypt,

passing then

across the Mediterranean

to Spain...

...to Greece...

...before it finally arrives
at Zuccotti Park,

in the United States.

And what were
these movements about?

They were really
about the demand

for a new kind of democracy.

During "Occupy Wall Street,"

we suddenly thought, "What?

We can have
a democracy in this country

that's not run by
corporate finance capitalism?"

Like, "that's amazing,"
you know?

And the moment was so ripe
that, within 24 hours,

activists in New York City
took up the idea

and ran with it.

These movements
were a kind of refusal

of corporate culture
or consumerism,

and that was their essence.

The Occupy Movement

quickly spread
from Zuccotti Park

to cities
across the United States,

and then the world.

The Occupy
Movement captured the...

the feeling
that ordinary working people had

that, when the recession
happened in 2008,

the very banks

that had caused
the financial collapse

were the ones being rewarded,

and the rest of us
had got sold out.

What was
so important about Occupy

was to crystallize
the public anger.

Occupy did that,

and put an explanatory
narrative around

"the 99% versus the 1%."

We're just
trying to figure out a way

that we can
change the system--

an economic system
that is fundamentally--

fundamentally misaligned
in the corporate interests

and against
the people's interests.

And that's all we're doing here.

Occupy Wall Street
was a constructive failure,

but it taught us something
very important.

We need to pair protests
with gaining sovereignty,

which means
either pairing protests

with winning elections,

or pairing protests
with winning wars.

And you can choose,
as an activist.

I would advocate elections.

There's only so many times

you can have tear gas
fired into your face

and get hit over the head
by a police baton

or be dragged off to jail.

And after a while,
you say, you know,

"we're gonna do something
at the level of politics now."

But all those movements
face the challenge--

"what do you stand for?"

Are you actually
going to challenge

the power of corporations?

This is what the 2020s
will be about.

We turn now
to Seattle, Washington,

where a former
Occupy Wall Street activist

is being sworn in today
to the city council.

We have shown
that it's possible to succeed

as an independent, grassroots
openly-socialist campaign,

not taking any money
from big business.

This moment belongs
to that way of organizing.

Kshama becomes
the first socialist

elected to the Seattle City Council

since the early-20th century.

Her signature issue

was $15-an-hour minimum wage.

There were

courageous workers of McDonald's
and other fast-food outlets

who went out
on a one-day strike.

"15 and a union"
was their slogan.

On the 15th of May, 2014,

thousands of fast-food workers

flooded the streets
of 150 U.S. cities,

striking to demand
a $15 minimum wage,

better working conditions,

and the right
to form a union.

We organized ordinary people--

workers,
rank-and-file union members,

and activists

who wanted to fight
for 15.

If you are actually going to be
true to the movement,

if you are
going to be accountable

to all these people
you claim to represent,

once you're elected,

it does require you to take
a bold and strong stance

against the corporate politicians.

If they are not on your side,

then you have
to fight against them.

You're duty-bound!

Of the over
a billion dollars in taxes

that Amazon owes to the IRS,

they now get a break
of $789 million.

Her campaign wins
so many supporters

that Seattle becomes
the first major city in America

to adopt
a $15-an-hour minimum wage.

And that starts the ball rolling

as more and more cities
across the nation

have followed
the example of Seattle.

If you empower workers

by giving them
a better standard of living,

it's not going to stop there.

It raises their sights,
the confidence

of working people

towards a different kind of society.

You don't need a Ph.D.
in Economics to know

that your life sucks
under capitalism,

and we've got to build
a movement to fight for it.

Four more years!

In 2019,

Kshama Sawant
was elected to a third term

on Seattle City Council,

despite Amazon
spending $1.5 million

to try to unseat her.

Kshama was pioneering

the new urban Renaissance.

Starting around 2013
and '14, especially,

a whole new movement developed

of grassroots organizations
from various movements

that then united

to elect
for the first time

representatives of
their perspectives into office.

You had a whole wave of people,

all of whom were not expected
to have a chance.

All of them are running

on more or less
the same platform--

that income inequality
is the moral issue of our time,

and they were not just part
of a U.S. movement,

but you had Sadiq Khan,

the first Muslim elected
to the mayoralty of London,

you had Anne Hidalgo,

a leading environmentalist
and socialist of Europe,

winning the mayoralty of Paris,

Carmen Yulin Cruz, the Mayor
of San Juan, Puerto Rico,

and you had Ada Colau
in Barcelona.

In the wake of
the mortgage meltdown worldwide,

there were thousands
of Spanish homeowners

being evicted from their houses
by international banks,

and Ada Colau begins
to lead a resistance movement

of the homeowners.

Through mass protests

and civil disobedience,

she gains a name for herself
as a defender of the homeowners.

What's different
about this movement

is that the progressives
have seen the necessity

to actually capture office,

then also,
once they get into office,

they've understood the necessity
for continuing

to be connected
to the grassroots movements

that got them there.

In 2019,

more than 200
leading thinkers and activists

endorsed Colau's bid
for re-election.

"Barcelona has become
a beacon of hope," they wrote,

proving that we don't
have to be afraid

of standing up
to corporate power,

that there is another way
of doing politics

that puts people at the centre."

Colau was re-elected Mayor
in June, 2019.

Seeing the documentary
The Corporation,

it opened my eyes.

This is Chris Barrett.

He appeared in our first film,

featured as one of the first

corporate-sponsored
college students.

We saw Tiger Woods
on TV with a hat

with a Nike logo on it,

and we figured,

you know, he probably gets,
like, millions of dollars

just to wear the hat
on a press conference,

and therefore, we figured
we can do that for someone else

and hopefully get money,

in turn
so we could go to school.

You guys were poking fun at us,

but we were 18-year-old kids.

Seeing The Corporation,

my mind just, like,
kind of exploded.

It was just, like,

I had never been exposed
to this mindset before.

I was having lunch
with my grandfather

and I asked him "Who should
the Democratic nominee be?"

And he told me at the time

that "Bernie Sanders
looks pretty good."

I went home,

and I researched
Bernie's platform,

and I realized that, internally,

like, I align with
a lot that Bernie says.

This great nation
and its government

belong to all of the people,

and not to a handful
of billionaires.

When I got connected
to "Grassroots for Sanders,"

they offered me the position

of Assistant
Fundraising Manager,

where I could be able to do
the fundraising asks on Reddit.

We were able to raise
over $10 million

directly to Bernie Sanders' campaign.

At some of the field offices,

people would come
through the door

and they would say,
"How do I get involved?

I have never voted
in my life."

One of Bernie's messages,

after he lost
his Presidential run,

was that local people
could take back the power

and we could run for office.

I met a local
political organizer

in my town of Collingswood.

He was putting together

a slate
of progressive candidates.

I thought
that was a brilliant idea.

It was exactly what
Bernie wanted us to do,

and we--
I signed the form,

and we were running for office.

I don't think,

when I was out there
getting a corporate sponsor,

that I realized that,
in 16 years,

I would be an elected official
in New Jersey.

I'm gonna stay on this path,

and I'm gonna continue
down this political route

until we have the progressive
party of the future.

Historically,

progressive movements

were more interested about
building power in the streets--

which is an important thing--

and they kind of
neglected running for office.

I think, now,

progressives are starting
to see the nature of power,

where it lies,

and the reason
to contest for it.

Now we have
thousands of people saying,

"Hey! I want to run for office."

It's common to say now

that the Senator's
campaign failed.

I think that's a mistake.

I think it was
an extraordinary success.

Completely shifted the arena
of debate and discussion.

Issues that were unthinkable
a couple years ago

are now right in the middle
of attention.

The Sanders campaign

took to the larger
political stage

the kind of politics

being practiced
by local politicians,

like Sawant,

Colau,

and Barrett--

electoral politics interwoven
with grassroots activism.

Some form of "Green New Deal"

is essential
for the survival of humanity,

now it's part of
the general agenda.

Why?

Activists' engagement.

Young people,

they received support

from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and other young legislators,

who came into office

as part of the Sanders-inspired
popular wave.

I think
the next wave of revolutions

really is gonna be
this kind of strange thing

where we wake up
and we're like,

"Oh, my gosh,
there's this social movement.

They're in the streets,

but they're running
election campaigns.

They have candidates
and they're winning?"

Whatever form it takes,

change always begins
with organizing.

2018 is going to be

the year that we take

the toxic, stultified politics
of climate change

and turn it on its head,

and it starts
with stopping Adani!

Our aim

is to move the world away
from fossil fuels

as fast as possible.

The Wangan
and Jagalingou people

have a different struggle,

which is to protect their land
and to win land rights.

No means no!

Adani has tried
to rip our people apart.

It's actually brought
our people together as well.

And we've been able
to think about,

"What is
our alternative future?

What do we want to build?"

And it's not
extractive industries

that governments

and other corporations
would like it to be.

What we've set out to do

is support a whole range
of organizations and individuals

to work together,

to achieve much bigger change

than any one organization
could achieve working alone.

We want to lose control
of as many people as possible,

headed in the right direction.

We figured
that the only way

we could really stop the project

is stopping them
getting financed.

Yes, they need
the permits and the approvals,

but Adani also needs money.

Both "Stop Adani"

and the Wangan
and Jagalingou people

pushed to halt funding
of the Adani Coal Mine.

We met with some of
the largest banks in the world

and said,

"You need to acknowledge

that any investment in
the Adani Carmichael Coal Mine

will be a breach
of your obligations to us

as the indigenous people
who have said no."

Within a month,

Standard Chartered
came out publicly

and said that they would not
be giving any money to Adani.

That was after they'd already
given them $680 million.

The two campaigns
together succeeded

in stopping funding
from all banks worldwide.

Then they won again,

blocking the Australian
government's attempt

to fill the gap
with a $1-billion loan.

It was a huge victory for us

because we were told

it was something
that couldn't be done.

Adani and its government allies

continue their push
for the mine to go forward.

And yet,

not a single lump of coal
has been mined to date.

The resistance continues.

All of my life,

I have been told who I am
through stories

about the people
that I come from.

Without their resistance
and their resilience,

I would not be here.

It's come down to me,

and I refuse to be
the broken link in the chain.

The fight over
the Adani Coal Mine

has become a symbol

whether corporations
can continue to ride roughshod

over the wishes
of the community,

and create a future

that is in their
financial interests alone,

or whether the community
actually can build enough power

to say, "No, that is not
the future we want.

We want a safe future with
a safe climate for everybody."

There is this global network.

There's a big fight brewing

in Argentina
against fracking corporations,

against coal expansion
in South Africa

and the Philippines,

in India,

in Poland.

There's campaigns
against pipelines in Canada--

Kinder Morgan, Keystone XL--

the fight at Standing Rock.

Our indigenous people

have been on the front lines
way before my time.

It's about the land,
the water...

our inherent jurisdiction
as caretakers of Mother Earth.

But it's not
just an indigenous struggle,

it's a struggle of humanity.

We need to come together

to push back
the corporate agenda.

All people,

all races
are beginning to realize

we're in this together.

We will rise!
We will rise!

You cannot unring a bell.

Our civilization
is being sacrificed

for the opportunity

of a very small
number of people

to continue making
enormous amounts of money.

We have not come here

to beg world leaders
to care.

You have ignored us
in the past

and you will ignore us again.

We have run out of excuses

and we are running out of time.

We have come here

to let you know
that change is coming,

whether you like it or not.

The real power
belongs to the people.

If they're really wanting

to address the deep problems

of social, racial, and gender
injustice in our society,

then we need to think
of lessons from history.

One thing that's remarkable

is just
that people keep struggling.

That, in the worst situations,

people always fight...

...even when you thought
"nothing's possible,"

you look at
the political situation

and think how bad it is,

then something beautiful
and inspiring comes up.

In the spring of 2020,

the world shut down,

but people's hearts
opened wide.

One of
the most beautiful things

I've seen during the crisis

is the way workers
in a variety of sectors

have refused--

have refused to go along
with putting workers in danger.

Amazon workers striking,

FedEx workers walking out,

also health-care workers
put in dangerous situations.

This foresees
the kinds of struggles

that will emerge
from this crisis

that confront the inequalities
of this economy.

The pandemic

has revealed
that there is broad support

for the idea that we need
to contain corporate power,

so that we live in a society

where we reinvigorate democracy,

where we have a sense
of the public purpose,

and that we're not simply
at the mercy

of a few corporations
that increasingly run our lives.

This can

change the way
people think about the system.

We owe one another
certain things,

certain minimum things.

That's been lost
in the last 40 years

of deregulation
and privatization

and corporate takeover
of our political culture

and our political system.

It is starting
to dawn on society as a whole

that we're not going to go back
to the old normal,

there's no such world,

because the pandemic
has revealed

that the system is incapable

of addressing even
the most basic needs

of our society.

Then,
as this film was being finished,

George Floyd
is brutally killed by police--

a flash point
that ignites an uprising.

Thousands took to the streets,

demanding justice
for George Floyd.

...The death
of a Black man pleading

that he can't breathe

as a white officer
was kneeling on his neck.

Justice!

Now!

Imagine how angry and desperate

you would have to be
to come out and protest

in the historical pandemic

that has had

a disproportionately
horrendous impact

in Black communities.

Take your knee off our necks!

Take your knee
off our necks!

The democracy
is just trying to breathe.

Because of the weight
of poverty on our neck.

The denial of health care
on our neck.

'Cause what's happening

is metaphorically
the whole culture is saying,

"We can't breathe!"

Despite sometimes-
brutal police repression,

the protests grew

and began to target
broader injustices

and distorted priorities.

Look at the gear

and the equipment
that they have,

compared to hospital workers,

dressing themselves
in garbage bags,

being forced to use
the same N95 masks

for weeks at a time.

The protests

quickly became about more than
racist policing...

confronting the echoes

of corporate capitalism's
racist past.

Capitalism is racial capitalism.

The Industrial Revolution,

which pivoted around
the production of capital,

was enabled by slave labour
in the U.S.

There are calls to rethink

who we choose to honour
from our past.

Monuments to men
who were once honoured

now viewed by a new generation

as symbols of racism
and colonialism.

People are protesting

because they know
it doesn't have to be like this.

People only protest

what they believe
can be changed.

If folks didn't protest,

that'd mean
we really would be in trouble.

I don't believe

these are just protests
against police brutality.

We're seeing the convergence
of a class rebellion,

with racism at the centre of it.

I believe, without a doubt,

that change will come
from the protests.

It is not just Black people.

We can't be the same
coming out of this.

Too many people are suffering.

We must make
our political system respond.

We must do it

in our deepest moral
and non-violent traditions,

but it must not it be weak.

It has to be strong.

It has to last for the election
and beyond an election.

There is
a whole new spirit out there

that's saying

500 years of colonialism
is enough,

200 years of corporate rule
is enough,

200 years of the building
of a fossil-fuel age

is enough.

I see people who are waking up
to the realization

that, no, you don't go
start an app

if you want to change the world.

You actually
try to change the world

and de-rig a rigged system.

And, in a moment like this,

if you're not working

at that level
on those kinds of things,

you have to really ask yourself,

what was your role
in this moment of history?

We've been here before.

We've been at a place

where my ancestors

were bought and sold
for profit.

We've been at a place

where people routinely
died on the job.

And over time,

movements of ordinary people
have broken the chains

and have held corporations
and powerful people accountable

and changed the rules,

so that more people can flourish
and feel truly free.

I think we are in the midst

of another one
of those movements

right now,

where a lot of people,
all across the world,

are saying
"Enough is enough."