The proletariat may have "Home sweet home" hanging in their homes if they have one.

But

"Better Rich and Safe than Equal"

To be found quaintly embroidered and framed in the living rooms of every oligarch's home.

The corporate world only very reluctantly embraces democracy. It has been shown many times in the past that corporate traders (unless fettered by those dastardly regulations) will deal with the devil himself if there's a profit to be made. And very often the devil can guarantee supply whereas those pesky democracies have a habit of changing governments/policies every so often and interfering with business as usual, and subjecting it to all sorts of unnecessary safeguards and checks.

I think the most advanced example of the corporate good being synonymous with the democratic process is, of course, in the US. And, surveying their economic and social health, only someone with chopped liver for brains would dream of taking a step in that direction.

Thanks for this, Prof Keane. I understand the rust of this article is a questioning of Schumpeter's argument, namely that a bourgeoisie is a necessary condition for parliamentary democracy.

Noting that capitalism has proceeded substantially along a trajectory toward ever-fewer, ever-larger, oligopoly corporations, run by and for ever-fewer, ever-richer executives. Simultaneously, e ranks of a "bourgeoise" class, as distinct to a "working" class, have diminished; while this merging of the latter two classes should be, after Menzies, something of a triumph, the development of super national corporate overlordship was not expected, and nor is it desirable.

To reclaim sovereignty, a necessary first step is re-engagement with the affairs of the nation by its citizens.

Thanks Prof. Keane for a great article.

Big business's past success is self evident - it has advanced the western world reasonably and the human race has generally benefited from the spinoffs from widespread development of resources using advanced technologies.
It has been able to work in cooperation with both democracies and dictatorships for its own self interest - the common good of most citizens emerges as a secondary benefit.
But can it operate in an environment limited by sustainability boundaries - where no further growth is either desired or possible?
The science tells us than anthropogenic global warming is almost certainly real; further burning of fossil fuels will exacerbate the problem. The science also tells us that species extinction is proceeding at a potentially disastrous unprecedented rate due to land clearing and marine resources exploitation.
This is the first time in our history ( thanks to technological advances etc) that capitalism has been completely unfettered of limitations in its application except for the diminishing sustainability boundaries.
These planetary environmental survival boundaries are not negotiable or otherwise able to be circumvented no matter how powerful the entity – though the natural consequences may be delayed by several/many years.
Capitalism is untested in these conditions. Let's hope for all our sake it can very soon start accepting some meaningful responsibility for its part in polluting the Earth beyond the point of climate stability; otherwise humankind is destined to go the way of the dinosaur.

Unfortunately, as world economic conditions deteriorate, and boundaries imposed by pressing environmental issues close in, it would appear that our current capitalist system is embracing a cannibalistic re-arrangement of the free market to ensure the survival of its fittest.
National governments, when seen as a hindrance to further profitability are circumvented by use of corporate wealth. They can own or control the local media agenda to an extent that the general voter population is immersed in a fog of misinformation; clear cut scientifically measured data is diminished in value by repetition of vague half-truth by sloganeering sycophantic communication operatives who exploit the general ignorance of the voting public on technical and scientific issues. Democratic national government regulations can be effectively negated by sponsored politicians.
To my mind, big business has no inherent interest in nurturing or supporting a democracy, or any other form of governance system, other than to ensure the continued advancement, security and stability of its investment/operation.
It mostly has no social agenda other than its own selfish ends of profitability and growth. Big business has no social conscience –especially when in survival mode; as amply demonstrated by past operations of the tobacco and oil industries.
If the event this evolution of capitalism proceeds to its ultimate conclusion, it will have created a capitalist dictatorship of world economic order – democracy will be nowhere to be seen.
Very few, wealthy entities may retain control for perhaps few hundred years at most. An unfortunate side effect will be that the vast bulk of humankind will perish as living conditions deteriorate in a polluted climate.
Unfortunately I haven’t any answers to the many problems that will arise when sustainability limits impact our society in uncomfortable ways.
Essentially, to ensure the continued survival of our present comfortable human existence, any future organised system of industrial, economic and social management of humankind must be sustainable.

Can a viable business governance system be devised to control any level of “business” (let alone “Big Business”)? It must provide incentives to supply goods, labour and services, while not embracing growth over the long term. That system must also be able to distribute the resulting sustainable benefits of the business in fair proportion to all who work/contribute in the industry; as well as the consumers.
It’s seems akin to suggesting a benign dictatorship will best run the world.

It is a mammoth ask for planners to produce such a system, if indeed it exists at all;
Especially in light of the basic human failing that has been exploited, encouraged and honed to perfection by “Big business” – Insatiable human greed.
Can democracy survive? -I hope so.