To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
But you catch my meaning: Whether public or private–note that at this level of the power structure, no such distinction obtains–hence, we’re talking about state capitalism, wherein the state is an instrument of capital, and politics, or what in the media they call “democracy,” reduces to factional struggles among the wealthy–I dare someone to show me any real difference between the Office of the Mayor of Chicago and of the other CEOs around the city!–representatives serve the needs of their constituencies. As Hank De Zutter and Tony Griff’s “The Electric Connection” (Dec. 1) outlined, many of the owners-managers of Chicago are “plugged into” Com Ed, and vice-versa. And the only way we puny mortals are going to break the circuit, as David Moberg argued in his accompanying “Power Play,” is to raise the costs to the owners-managers of the city of continuing to have everything their way. Short of diminishing their capacity to run the city without interference from ordinary people (the “rabble” whom the “rabble rousers” rouse, as scripture, Leo Burnett, and the Tribune tell us), they don’t even know that ordinary people exist. Let alone care.
“Has Com Ed done the best job possible in providing economical power, and is it the best choice for the future?” asked Moberg. He’s right: This is the basic question insofar as “natural” monopolies go. “Com Ed’s extremely high rates make a prima facie case that it hasn’t done such a great job,” he correctly answered. Even more to the point: Its extremely high rates, a consequence of its diseconomy of scale, itself a consequence of a managerial policy of treating generating capacity and the nuclear plants it requires not as instruments for serving the consumers’ needs but its own, especially as investments, make an indisputable case that Com Ed hasn’t even tried to do a mildly good job.
