Why do we hurl around "Corporate" like an insult?

[Joe the Revelator]

This has always confused me since the counter inauguration protests in 2000 when my 18 year old self went around screaming "Bush, Gore: Corporate Wh*res!" but not really understanding what I was saying. As I've grown (a bit) older, and have come to realize what corporations are, I have understood less about the hatred for corporations.

At there basic level Corporation are made up of people, much like DU. There are people with a little more power (the admins/mods) and there are the lower level heart and soul ( you and me in my poor DU analogy) but a separation of power is not an evil thing. Even non-corporate "mom and pop" operations separate power and offer different salaries to different levels.

I understand the idea that some Corporations really are evil. Then again, so are a lot of private outfits. I don't see the point of separating that evil into levels, especially when, without Corporations, unemployment and poverty, something we can all agree is a bad thing, run rampant.

[datasuspect]

1. it's not that

you are taking the view that corporations can exist independently of their results, as if they were benign, neutral entities.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. No I'm saying that they do not differ from Private companies...

but we hold up the mom and pops as a shining beacon, whilst stomping on the corporations, when they are made up of the same thing (people), have the same divisions of power and are both equally as likely to be "evil" or "benevolant". They are just operating at different scales. Plus, if you got rid of one of those two types of entities, the country wouldn't be crippled. If you got rid of the other, a vast majority of us would be poor and jobless.

[The Wielding Truth]

29. The problem is not the size of the corporation, it's the soul of the

corporation or mom and pop. Yes, each can be varying degrees of exploitive or philanthropic, but each should be held in check.

A small business being poorly run and dishonest will probably fail quickly because it will be stopped by it's loss of profit or it's inability to retain legal teams to pick apart the laws and weight the scales so they read in their favor. I hope you understand that I feel that capitalism in most cases helps a democracy and promotes freedoms.

The large corporation, however, has no restrictions because every time they are exposed there is no bite left in our system to hold them accountable. We the public, any worker earning less than $200,000 annually, are defenseless.

Even if we benefit from their economic leftovers we have lost our rights to protect ourselves and our children and parents from being expendable. If we are no more then consumers we have lost our souls as well, and freedoms that reflect our humanity. We have lost habeas corpus, freedom from torture,the rights to participate in who runs this country and who controls war and our natural resources. It's big and it's important and it's the loss of the principle of democracy.

That is the reason why the small government, business is king, conservative mindset touted by republicans left unchecked undermines democracy.

This land and this government is no more yours or mine. It is theirs and we are no longer equals or even protected from them. We can vote with our wallets, but that is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. It is a government for the wealthy and the workers. Not the dream our fathers,mothers,sons and daughters,neighbors and friends lost their lives for. I hope you see we are not anti corporation we are here because we stand and cry for democracy, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. A corporation is really an abstraction; it's a kind of business organization.

A corporation is organized as a separate entity, but it can operate only through the actions of the people that control it. In that sense a corporation is only as "evil" as its human managers. The real problems with corporations, IMO, is that they are treated under the law as, among other things, having the same rights as actual humans, which has made it possible for the people who run certain large corporations to use the corporations' legal rights and privileges to exploit employees and consumers for their own personal gain. The corporate entity itself isn't inherently evil, but the legal protections they have been afforded by Congress make it possible for the corporation's owners to do some very bad things and get away with it.

[Joe the Revelator]

5. That was the kind of answer I was looking for!

Without doing my own research I can't say if I agree or not, but at least this is a decent path to start from.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. They are not inherently evil -- but they are inherently insane.

Most corporations, if they really were people, would be sociopaths. They are required to be. Their only motivation is profit, and passing that profit to their shareholders - not to the workers who make up the organization. In fact, treating the workers fairly and equitably is a bad business model because it does not maximize profits.

Of course, there are thousands of small corporations, incorporated businesses, which are fair and just and not psycho, but the more successful they are, the more they grow, the further the management grows from the source, and the more they are held to be responsible only to the board and to profits. They grow into insanity.

Once upon a time, Disney was a half dozen guys with drawing pens, intent on having fun.

[tkmorris]

46. Outstanding post

I never really thought of it that way, but you are correct. A corporation, when viewed by the same standards that a human being would be, is completely insane. They are a bit like the Terminator from the movies. They have one goal, and they can't be reasoned with except in terms of achieving that goal. They have no empathy, compassion, moral values, or anything else that makes a human being decent. Their only goal is profits and they will stop at nothing to acquire it.

[supernova]

4. The problem isn't the people

I've worked in corporate america for the last 20 years and met some fabulous people.

It's what corporations do as collective entities that matters. And what they do really is only predicated on making a profit and increasing shareholder value. That's what they exist for. All things being equal, that is a value neutral position. It is neither good nor bad.

However, all things are not equal. Often what corporations do in pursuit of profit and shareholder value does hurt someone, usually a less powerful competitor or adversary. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

[Joe the Revelator]

7. I was with you until your last section...

Agree that capitalism rules the day, what is the problem with hurting a competitor? (Serious question that I would like your opinion on, I'm not being argumentative for augmentatives sake)

[supernova]

12. I was thinking more along the lines

of a Wal-Mart coming into town and basically bulldozing the retail market of all the mom and pop stores. And in the process leaving an isolated rural community with no retail alternatives, so that you only have Wal-Mart to shop at, even if you wanted something else. That is true in many communities now.

That's the market speak.

For me personally, I would not want to do business with a company, regardless of what they sell, that hurts competitors simply because they can. You either have a superior product, and attract customers, or you do not. I would be less inclined to do business with a co that as a matter of day to day operations made of habit of inflicting hurt on competitors.

edit: I'll give you another example of bad corporate behavior. Utilities dumping waste in economically depressed areas because poorer folks aren't as politically engaged and can't fight back. That's the way Erin Brocovich made her name, fighting a utility company that was poisoning the ground water in a depressed community. This is deeply unethical and does not justify the pursuit of profit.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. I agree. nt

[noamnety]

6. Shareholders

Generally, their job is to exploit labor to make profits for shareholders who aren't doing the work.

Because they have the rights of "personhood" without the responsibilities.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Classic populist demagoguery is all.

Yay...let's hear it for the lowest common denominator! :sarcasm:

The rant is especially hollow when the chief criticizer of corporate influence ... is not far removed from the payroll of such *corporate interests* he now criticizes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. And how do you come up with that? nt

[jefferson_dem]

25. The same way most of us formulate our judgments and opinions, silly.

Are some *opinions* not allowed in your world?

I'm not about to defend any of the common practices of most corporations. At the same time, i find the whole "corporatist" ooga booga labeling meme overly divisive and demagogic. Let's stick to issues and ideas rather than labels, eh...

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. I was referring to specifics on how you came up with the idea that

the most vocal anti-corporate voice is in the pocket of the corporations.
Or so you seemed to imply.

Perhaps it is you that is going ooga booga instead of citing issues and ideas.

[welshTerrier2]

9. making money versus making a better country

let's call the following scenario a hypothetical for starters just to make a point.

all sorts of top PEOPLE from large oil companies meet with bush and cheney who just happen to be from the oil industry. they contributed their dollars and helped campaign to get bush and cheney elected. they pressure bush and cheney to invade Iraq. Why? does it have anything to do with 9/11? no. how about WMD? are oil companies worried about WMD? no. well, perhaps it might have something to do with how Saddam treated his own people? no. OK, well what about Israel? no.

the oil industry correctly understood that by taking Iraqi oil off the market for say, five to ten years, it would drive up oil prices and they would make hundreds of billions of dollars. did large, multi-national oil companies reap all time record profits since the invasion of Iraq took place? yep, they sure did.

now, has the invasion, war and occupation been good for the American people? nope, hard to make a case for that.

this "hypothetical" is the mechanism by which our government is run by corporations for their sole benefit. we are no longer a government of the people, for the people and by the people. that's just one example.

corporations fight against all kinds of laws that aren't good for their bottom lines but would be good for the American people. they are in business to make money. there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. there's something very wrong when massive amounts of money are able to direct national policy away from what's in the best interests of the American people.

if you really want to learn about what all the anti-corporate noise is about, check out these two books:

Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins and The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson

The problem is not "corporations" as a form of business entity; the problem is the control they are able to exert on the electoral, legislative and policy-making processes. The goal is not to do away with corporations; the goal is to get them out of our government and restore power to the American people.

[alfredo]

11. Howard Zinn exposes the anti democratic nature of the

corporate mindset in "A People's History of the United States."

[welshTerrier2]

15. excellent addition ...

thanks ...

[alfredo]

27. Lucky shot that's all.

[Joe the Revelator]

16. Very interesting post...

... and I don't mean to be obtuse with any of my replies. I'm more or less information seeking to better understand to position, and DU is making very sane arguments this evening.

[welshTerrier2]

34. lots of details about corporatism here

check out this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3471103&mesg_id=3471103

here's a quote from good old Abe Lincoln from 1864 (excerpted from Al Gore's The Assault on Reason):

We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end ... But I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.

and here's one from Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation from 1961:

source: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. (Note: Eisenhower's first draft originally referred to the "military-industrial-Congressional" complex - wt2) The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

My young friend, if you choose to stand with those of us who oppose the corporate abuse of our democracy and oppose the pressure large multi-national corporations exert on America's imperialist foreign policies, they will call you a lefty extremist. I don't care what labels they choose for me; I see myself as a patriot fighting to restore power to the American people. You're doing exactly the right thing by asking questions and weighing the answers you get very carefully. Don't be sucked in by lefty rhetoric and don't let the right wing jackals, from either major party, distract you from your purpose. That's my best advice. And read everything you can.

Here are some other great links:

Chalmers Johnson links:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/cj_int/cj_int1.h
http://buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/056
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IB01Aa01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE17Ak04.html

Here's a link to a recent interview John Perkins did with Amy Goodman on DemocracyNow: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

Also, please read (or watch) the DemocracyNow interview with Greg Palast at this link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1455245

And finally, here are the final two paragraphs from Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire:

There is plenty in the world to occupy our military radicals and empire enthusiasts for the time being. But there can be no doubt that the course on which we are launched will lead us into new versions of the Bay of Pigs and updated, speeded-up replays of Vietnam War scenarios. When such disasters occur, as they - or as-yet-unknown versions of them - certainly will, a world disgusted by the betrayal of the idealism associated with the United States will welcome them, just as most people did when the former USSR came apart. Like other empires of the past century, the United States has chosen to live not prudently, in peace and prosperity, but as a massive military power athwart an angry, resistant globe.

There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could retake control of the Congress, reform it along with the corrupted elections laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies. We have a strong civil society that could, in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. At this late date, however, it is difficult to imagine how Congress, much like the Roman senate in the last days of the republic, could be brought back to life and cleansed of its endemic corruption. Failing such a reform, Nemesis, the goddess of retribution and vengeance, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us."

[KansDem]

57. K&R!!!

If ever a post should stand alone as a thread, or a DU article, this is it! This pretty much sums up why we are where we are at this point in time.

Thanks!

[skids]

10. Where to start...

...here maybe?


Or maybe here?

Or perhaps here?

Been there, done that? Enjoy some rabble rousing.

[alfredo]

26. Clutch, pretty good.

What I saw of them at YT, I like. They look really solid. They don't go in for theatrics, they just lay down a groove. I like it dark and I like that they don't lay it on too heavy.

[skids]

33. They're earlier stuff was probably "too heavy"...

...but probably from elephant riders and later would be more your speed if you're into groove/southern/stoner. They crank out a lot of albums, and they gig hard, always on the road, multiple shows a week. I'll admit I usually hold a lingering disdain for musicians, not these guys, they work at it.

[alfredo]

35. It seemed mature in the sense they have grown musically. You can

thrash it out for emotional effect, or tease it out. The tease is what makes it interesting.

Laid back can be very intense. Portishead is a good example.

[saltpoint]

13. Because we wish, in our deepest selves, that corporations would be better citizens

than they often are.

The record of pollution and betrayal of the public interest can't just be dismissed. Not all corporations behave like Ken Lay's did, but some do, and their transgressions hurt many people at once, with profit as the only motive.

I think most of us are for the forward-looking, worker-directed, public interest-minded company, big or small or in the middle. They're out there. They underwrite museums and orchestras and theater groups nd universities and bus systems.

[antiimperialist]

17. The problem with corporate media, for example, is evident

There is a conflict of interest that keeps reporters who work for these companies from taking the small guy's side.
If you work for MSNBC which is owned by General Electric, you would try to make sure you don't express much satisfaction towards a candidate that advocates consumer rights, for example.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. This, I aree with without reservation....

...the perfect world media should be independent of all influence, corporate or otherwise.

[mcscajun]

19. Two basic problems with corporations; the first is inherent, the second

unfortunate happenstance.

"Corporation, noun: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce

Corporate personhood as granted by the Supreme Court in the 1800s, which allows corporate interests to have the same rights and privileges as human interests, giving corporations unwarranted powers.

[Telly Savalas]

79. What specific rights are granted by personhood that go beyond

the aggregate rights of the people involved with the organization?

What are some specific unwarranted powers which stem from personhood?

[illinoisprogressive]

20. Corporations have been having the say so in this country and yet, they

don't care about it. they send all the jobs overseas and crap on the little guy here. They don't care what happens.
They get welfare and yet, the little guy gets squat.
Being a corporate shill is an insult and meant to be so.

[quiet.american]

21. Why were you screaming that Gore was a corporate whore in 2000? n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

24. I was young, dumb, and got caught up in the wrong march..

I went to support Gore, and the first march I got caught up in was a mix of naive counter culture idiots, and some of the blac block. I figured, for my own personal safety, that when in Rome, chant as the Romans do.

[quiet.american]

32. Honest enough :) -- curious about the "blac bloc" -- what was their deal? n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

37. I spelled it wrong, it's actually black bloc...

...and this is their wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc

A black bloc is an affinity group, or cluster of affinity groups,<1> that comes together during some sort of protest, demonstration, or other event involving class struggle, anti-capitalism, or anti-globalization. Black clothing and masks are used to make the bloc appear to be one large mass, promote solidarity, create a clear revolutionary presence, and also to avoid being identified by authorities.

[quiet.american]

41. Thanks. n/t

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. I screamed it becauseof his tireless work for NAFTA

though Al has made amends and I could back him now

[ProudDad]

68. Uh, because in 2000 he WAS a DLC corporate whore... (n/t)

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Because we live in a corporate kleptocracy.

The large corporations have completely corrupted our system of government, establishing a sham two party duopoly that runs the federal government for the benefit of a small group of wealthy and powerful elites.

Many small corporations are benign, the system we live under is not. Until there is a reform era on par with the new deal that re-establishes social-democratic control of our system, regulating capitalism in a mixed economy for the benefit of all rather than for the few, things will only get worse. The good news is that the reform era will inevitably come about, the bad news is that it is the inexorable momentum of greed that will wreck the current system (and is well on its way to doing just that) and that it is out of that wreckage that change will occur.

[supernova]

31. Funny how that works

Greedmongering is always its own undoing.

Too bad we have to have a depression to bring it about.

[Jed Dilligan]

36. They have the rights but none of the obligations of citizens,

for me that's reason enough to oppose them. However, if they started paying their share of taxes I would be a bit less opposed.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

38. I'm really beginning to wonder f I know this site these days

Threads like this. The Hillary apologists. The hatered of Kucinich and Gravel
I just don't get it.

[Joe the Revelator]

52. What wrong with this thread? nt

[Progressive Friend]

40. Private business is inherently undemocratic

You do not get to elect your boss. He is the dictator. You might say, “Well work somewhere else if you don’t like him!” But it is basically the same at any privately owned business, even if the boss/management is “nice” (i.e. a benevolent dictator). The only options are: to follow the boss’ dictates, to become homeless/a thief or to get a government job. At least with state ownership, you can throw out the politicians via elections if you tire of them, but you can never vote your boss out of office.

[Trillo]

42. Here's my stab at your basic question.

One of the arguments I've seen is that since corporations are made up of people, how can they be bad. After all, People are making all the decisions! They won't lie. They won't pollute. They won't put their competitors out of business. These are human beings making the decisions! Therefore, the corporation is not inherently vile, only as vile or good as the people making the decisions.

In order to explore the flaw in this, Let's simplistically hypothecate:

There are 10 shareholders with 10% company ownership each, and All 10 Agree With MAKING MONEY.

Let's further say there are some human and social concerns:

5 shareholders believe in being honest,
4 are strict environmentalists, and don't want any pollution by the company,
2 are concerned with keeping a healthy competitive environment (not driving out competitors -- I know, it's a stretch, just remember it's hypothetical), and
2 are highly religious.

(note there is some overlap in the shareholder's concerns)

We could continue making these alternate human "people" concerns up, but it may suffice to make the point. All shareholders can ONLY democratically agree on "making money" when they vote, except in unusual block circumstances. The concerns of the honesty freaks are generally ignored, the concerns of the wacko environmentalists are ignored, the concern with competitors (LOL) are ignored, and well, of course the God people get rooked.

All that absolutely matters, at the end of proxy voting, is Money. And that, in a nutshell, is one HUGE problem because human concerns generally become diluted.

I've read the United States is now a corporation. I wonder who its shareholders are?

[Trillo]

74. The next non-democratic aspect of stock ownership.

Another aspect of public corporations is how and who owns the stock. While proxy votes give the appearance of democracy, your vote is based upon the number of shares you own, this is another method of human concern dilution, as the stockholders with more shares have more say. So richer people end up making the decisions. If a poor person scrapes together a few shares, their concerns are given little weight. It's a far cry from one person = one vote, the basis of democracy.

Many citizens may have stock ownership through an instrument such as a mutual fund. While having such ownership in a fund allows you to vote in the fund's proxies, all that fund is doing is reinvesting your funds in other companies, essentially acting as a capital aggregator. If such a fund has ownership in company X, and you're invested in the fund, you would think you had partial ownership over company X -- Not True with respect to Voting! You are not allowed to vote in company X's proxies!

So, this is another undemocratic aspect of fund corporations, they will use your capital to buy ownership in other companies, but DO NOT pass voting rights in those companies to you. The claim is that they have a fiduciary duty to maximize revenue, so, once again, Greed Rules and is the only concern.

Since funds are some of the largest investors (capital aggregators), and because stockholders with more shares have more say, company votes tend to go their way. They use your money to buy for themselves the ability to direct the companies.

Greed -- rule by the richest is the outcome.

[On the Road]

43. Corporations as Entities

pursue self-interest more single-mindedly than most individuals and have obtained the power to reshape the law according to their wish lists.

I do blame corporate influence for a lot of what's gone wrong with the country in the last 25 years. But I think demonization is less useful than looking at the causes of the change:

1) An unapologetic philosophy of self-interest has become unremarkable. Before Reagan, it was considered shameful and repulsive to publicly argue the type of "greed is good" philosophy that became acceptable under Reagan.

It should be just as publicly shameful to be an economic predator as a racist or sexist. When corporations have to lobby for their policies on the basis that they are good for society, it changes the argument and results.

2) Government regulation has declined. Not all deregulation is bad -- Jimmy Carter abolished interstate trucking tariffs and reduced regulation of the airlines and financial industries. Some of it was good.

But changes in regulations today seem to emerge from narrow corporate interests. The best regulation is unobtrusive and benefits both consumers and businesses. It's difficult but not impossible. But today it's all about politicians taking large amounts of money and voting for laws written by industry organizations. In the long run, these laws are not only bad for consumers, but often for the economy, other industries, and often the very companies that support them.

3) The public discussion of these issues is so degraded now that it's difficult to get beyond sound bites. Politicians and the media both have to act like their audience has a brain. Bad policies are routinely promoted in utterly bad faith for completely dishonest reasons. They have to be called out or laughed out of the room.

I'm in the telecom industry, which has gone through many stages. I know how well universal service worked. I have seen the relative success of price control deregulation in the 1980s, which kept prices low and gave telcos incentives to become more efficient. I have seen the perverseness of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I have also seen my employer go from a responsible corporate citizen to a greedhound that will do anything for a buck.

Not every development has been bad. Business is much more efficient nowdays. Prices are lower. Profits are higher. (This is fundamentally good, because profits are needed for higher wages, paying taxes, and IRA appreciation.) The benefits are not fairly distributed now, but redistribution is easier than creation. It simply takes leadership and will.

A lot has changed since Reagan's inauguration , but there is nothing inevitable about the current state of affairs. We did not go from a monarchy to a democracy with a bill of rights by magic.

[killbotfactory]

44. Corporations put money above all else

Legally, they have to.

This makes them particularly sociopathic, and leads to things like Defense contractors lobbying for war, health insurance companies denying legitimate claims and leaving 40+ million people uninsured, and many more underinsured. Not to mention global warming, doctors reccomending cigarettes, union leaders being murdered all over the globe, striking workers getting their heads bashed in by thugs, etc.

[Trajan]

45. When corporations have more control than citizens ....

Then`that is a serious problem ..... It represents plutocratic government, NOT a democracy ....

I work for a corporation ... I am glad I have that opportunity ..... But they should NOT have more power than citizens ..... The people should be able to regulate such entities, yet they use their wealth to cajole and bribe members of government to overturn the will of the people .... it makes a mockery of representative government IF the representatives only adhere to those with wealth ..... Some corporations will use whatever power they have to reduce wages and compensation to absolute minimums by denying citizens THEIR rights, again by subverting government against it's own people ....

Your offer of corporations as 'people' misses the point, and is fallacious (Fallacy of Composition ?) .... one might say that Corporations are 'trucks' ... or maybe 'boxes' ...... after all: they have those too ....

Good citizens make a great society ..... Citizens who run corporations that use their wealth to subvert the will of the majority of citizens are subverting Democracy ....

THAT is the problem ....

[Iris]

69. Bingo. Add to that the mentality that "the market" can solve all problems

and we get the mess we're in today. There are some things that shouldn't be left to the market to "fix", such as the healthcare system and environmental problems.

[Larkspur]

47. Corporations are inherent dictatorships

and their purpose is to make a profit, even if that means shredding our Constitution to do it.

Multi-national corporations are working to erase national boundaries so that they can exploit a large mass of labor and create a 2 tier class -- the elite few and the peasant majority.

[DangerDave921]

53. WRONG

Corporations are not inherent dictatorships. Employees are not forced to work there, and can leave at any time. There is no inherent connection between running a business and shredding the constitution. There are some corporate criminals in this world, but that does not mean corporations are bad; it's the individual who acted illegally.

And I thought DU'ers wanted to erase national boundaries?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. non sequitor.

"Corporations are not inherent dictatorships. Employees are not forced to work there, and can leave at any time."

An essential quality of a dictatorship is not the freedom or lack thereof of the citizens of a dictatorship to leave the country. A dictatorship is a form of government with an absolute ruler unconstrained by law or constitution.

You can make a good case for why a corporation is not a dictatorship, after all the rule of the corporation is constrained by law, charter and regulation and is generally rule by committee rather than rule by one absolute ruler. What is clear about corporate forms of organization is that they are undemocratic, hierarchical, and authoritarian. The original Fascist theories of the 20's and 30's in fact modeled their organization of the fascist state on both the modern corporation and the military. Mussolini in fact referred to fascism as corporatism.

[DangerDave921]

62. i see

I understand the complaints about profit at the expense of all else. I believe corporations need to exercise some corporate morality in terms of working conditions, fairness, etc. And I want strong policing so that there is honest and fair business transactions. That's where government comes in.

I can't criticize a corporation for being authoritarian and hierarchal. That's the nature of the beast, whether it's a corporation or a mom and pop store, or some old dude who fixes guitars and has some young guy working for him. The boss is always going to exert authority on the worker in terms of assignments, pay, vacations, etc. How else could it work? The employee decides on his own what he's going to do that day? There will always be a boss and a hierarchy.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. "That's the nature of the beast"

Not it isn't. How else could it work? Use your imagination. It is called democracy and it does not have to be limited to ritual acts of ballot marking.

[DangerDave921]

65. Details

How would it work in real life? Let's say, e.g., a small business of 20 people that provides cleaning services to office buildings. There is the guy who started and runs the company, there are the people he hires to do the cleaning, the people he hires to answer the phone, handle payroll, do accounting, etc. How can there NOT be a hierarchy in such a situation? Someone has to decide where the cleaners go, who gets paid how much, what supplies need to be ordered, etc.

How is that all handled by democracy?

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Hmmm...

a) unions.
b) cooperative enterprises.

[DangerDave921]

71. OK

And there will still be the guy who cleans the toilets, who reports to the guy who supervises him. Who will, in turn, report to the guy who manages him. And on and on. You still haven't answered the fundamental question - how can a corporation not be authoritarian and hierarchal. A company cannot exist unless someone is directing the action.

If I'm in the OR getting heart surgery, I sure hope the surgeon is directing the action, and making sure the residents and nurses are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. I have, you just aren't listening.

There are many cooperative enterprises of all sizes, of various organization structures with varying degrees of workplace democracy. For example, google Mondrian. The authoritarian structure of the corporation is not the only form that works. The role played by unions in creating workplace organizational structures independent of corporate authority is well known. Unions have changed the way we all work by reducing the absolute authority of the corporate structure. Are you going to have the weekend off? Do you have health insurance? Did you get a paid vacation this summer?

An OR team in an operation is an example of a small unit performing a dedicated task. At that time there may in fact be strict rules about exactly how things get done. The rules for how that task is performed and who exactly plays what roles are the things that can be decided, in advance, in ways other than 'shut up and do what you are told to do'.

[ProudDad]

70. If corporate officers did what you want

"I believe corporations need to exercise some corporate morality in terms of working conditions, fairness, etc. And I want strong policing so that there is honest and fair business transactions."

They would be sued and possibly incarcerated for not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities...

Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. All other concerns of morality, decency, humanity are secondary (or tertiary behind perks and high salaries) to that prime directive...

"There will always be a boss and a hierarchy"

Not in a cooperative...

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. It is not the CEOs, or the Presidents, or the money managers that

are the dictators - it is the corporations themselves. In one sense 'corporate personhood' is absolutely correct, in that the corporation can reach a point where it becomes an organic entitiy in itself, not dependent upon the workers who labor for it, the managers who control the workers, or the leadership, even to the CEO, who supposedly run the company. The corporation is in charge, and it has no inherent sense of morality or limits.

Of course, employees can leave. And immediately be replaced. Workers are of no consequence. And those corporate criminals? I doubt many of them grow up thinking "I want to steal millions from people who trust me". The corporations create the criminals - or rather, they create the environment in which those who have the squishiest morals can be the most successful. The corporate structure in fact insists on it. What matters, to the corporation, is results. The ends DO justify the means. And the guys who are most willing to push the envelope are the ones who are most highly rewarded - if they don't go to jail.

Two young MBA students. Both vying for a well-placed internship with International Baskets, dependent upon their standing upon finishing their coursework in "Underwater Basket Weaving - a Business Model". It's make or break time. Someone approaches each with a packet of answers to the final exam. Student A, confident of his knowledge, declines. Student B, who is just as good as Student A, worries that Student A may have gotten the same material and have a foot up on him, so he pays $200 for the packet. He thinks he's got the material cold, but needs insurance, just in case. It's not like he's cheating, or anything, because he really KNOWS this stuff. So he finds one question that is trickily worded, with a triple negative, and finds the answer is exactly the opposite of what it seems to be. He answers correctly, wins the internship.

Just a minor breach in ethics. Rewarded by the corporation. He doesn't plan to steal millions. He just wants to get that internship. The corporation doesn't know that he cheated - nor does it care. He was the winner. That's all that matters. In a world where only results, profits, matter those who have strong ethics are at a decided disadvantage - and they know it - so begins an upward spiral of unethical behavior because each knows that the next guy is cheating to get ahead, and must therefore cheat to stay ahead of them. The most lucrative corporations are awash with the type, because they create the culture which rewards such behavior - therefore, you see it in the defense industry, in big oil and big pharma, in the insurance industry. The richer the rewards, the liklier that unethical people permeate the organization. And as long as no one gets caught, no one cares.

That is the problem with corporations. As with the Bierce definition quoted above, it is profits without responsibility.

[sandnsea]

48. Global Corporatism

Everybody knows what is meant when the word "corporate" is used - I don't know why people choose to cloud the very serious problems corporatism is creating.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

49. uh, because..

Generally, corporations get the gold mine.

The guy digging down there...

Well, you know what he gets... (right?)

It's all about the kind of corporation - some are not evil - some really try to be fair - Google is a good example of a corporation that takes care of its own.

A real "Corporatist" is someone who looks out for only the bottom line and number one - they do not give a rats ass about you, me or the kid in China who is painting the lead based paint on the crapolla toy that WalMart sells to our kids.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Jack Sprat]

50. because it has become symbolic of

unbridled greed. Reagan hurled around the term of "government" like an insult and his followers began echoing that theme. He took off all the restraints that government had placed on corporations to keep them from becoming the all consuming beasts that they once were and have become again. A corporation is indeed made up of people but they, too, can end up in the belly of the beast. Ask one of the tens of thousands who have ended up there. The greed of the beast is insatiable.

[H2O Man]

51. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair.

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday.
MAN, you been a naughty boy, and let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
goo goo g'joob" -- Dr Winston O'Boogie

[harun]

54. The problem in my opinion is not the evil

corporation, which a whole lot of them are not evil, but the power they wield in our current system. So when I say some politician is a corporatist it is because they support the current level of power the corporations wield over the government (and people) or support more power for them. I am not at all in the camp of Nader who thinks we need to abolish them. I believe the state should have more power than them and that they should be able to express views to politicians but not completely own them to do their bidding like some do now.

People are sick of being looted by them without any protection by the state and the majority is coming around to this realization (IMHO).

[MadHound]

55. Because at best, corporations are amoral, their guiding principal is to make money,

As much money as possible, in any way possible, just so long as they don't get caught. Corporations, as we've seen time and again, don't care about the enviroment, people, or this country. They only care about their bottom line.

In addition, corporations exert an inordinate amount of power over our government. Through their campaign donations, PACS, lobbyists, etc. they are able to mold legislation and policy to fit their own needs, and they simply don't care who they screw over in the process.

Frankly, virtually any politician who has taken corporate money is compromised. Politicians want to keep those campaign donations rolling in, thus it is imperative for them to please their corporate donors which they do by passing legislation favorable to various corporate entities. Sure, it screws over the average voter, but in this age of money uber alles, that doesn't matter. Voters don't donate that much in the larger scope of things, and frankly their votes can always be bought one way or another with enough money.

This is why we desperately need public campaign financing. Take corporate money out the equation and we will have a government more responsive to the people.

[dionysus]

56. because they've bought our government.

isn't that obvious to you?

[groovedaddy]

59. Watch the documentary "The Corporation"

This film lays it out rather well:

http://www.thecorporation.com/

[LanternWaste]

61. So little time....

Corporations receive special status under the law making them less liable for both civil and criminal acts (The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders). Additionally, corporations receive special tax exemption. Adam Smith, in 'Wealth of Nations' criticized corporations due to the disparate interests and separation of management and ownership.

Noam Chomsky wrote, "A corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level..."

Also, the interests are directed to maximize the shareholders positions, rather than that of the consumer and the employee.


That, in a nutshell is why I use it as a pejorative term.



(Also, I think it's a wee bit disingenuous to broaden the definition to include DU, or Mom-and-Pop operations-- those particular entities have neither the advantages, nor the protection granted by incorporating a business.)

[mitchum]

63. Because corporations are sociopathic

[ProudDad]

67. Corporations are inherently evil

http://www.thecorporation.com/


THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

=================

"without Corporations, unemployment and poverty, something we can all agree is a bad thing, run rampant."

In the go-go 1980s the Fortune 500, the "best and brightest" of the corporations contributed exactly ZERO (that's ZERO with a "Z") jobs to the economy...

-----------------

Read up about corporations and the evil they represent here:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml

Because of a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter's notes in an 1886 railroad tax case, corporations are now legally considered "persons," equal to humans and entitled to many of the same protections guaranteed only to humans by the Bill of Rights - a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founders of the United States. The results of this "corporate personhood" have been:

* Unequal taxes
* Unequal privacy
* Unequal wealth
* Unequal trade
* Unequal media
* Unequal regulation
* Unequal responsibility for crime
* Unequal protection from risk
* Unequal citizenship and access to the commons

To remedy the legal blunder of corporate personhood, Hartmann offers specific action steps that can be taken by citizens, courts, legislatures, and local communities.


--------

KNOW YOUR ENEMY!!!!

[LSK]

72. please read Thom Hartmann's Screwed

Corporations have rights equal to people which is wrong.

Corporations are driven by profit 1st which is wrong.

Corporations have limited liability while citizens are screwed which is wrong.

Corporations are paying less percentage in taxes than ever while using arguably more of the commons which is wrong.

[LostInAnomie]

75. Detached, souless greed.

A corporation's only obligation is to make profits for the shareholders. Not to be a good employer, not to look out for the welfare of it's employees, not to look out for the environment, not to care about the citizen of the country in which it is located, etc. It is a detached group of shareholders that could not care less about these things.

If a town gets destroyed, who cares? If people are working in filth and making $0.50 an hour, so what? If unions are crushed and no one has a secure job, as long as it doesn't effect me, who gives a shit? It's all worth it if it makes the shareholder money.

Mom and pop businesses can't afford this detachment.

[LWolf]

76. Corporations aren't people,

and if you think that the power holders in a corporation make their corporate decisions about wages, working conditions, hiring/firing, and political donations based on the needs of their lowly workers, you need to think again.

Corporate power-structure is inherently non-democratic.

[slampoet]

77. Your cooking tastes real corporate, Mom.

Your dancing is very corporate.

This book is written in that great corporate style.

Good corporate paintings for sale. Want to buy one? Why not?


I rest my case.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. For the past 25 years, business executives have been indoctrinated in

the teaching that a company's only purpose is to produce profits for its shareholders. Nothing else matters. It is a completely amoral worldview.

For that reason, too many executives believe that anything goes, as long as it increases share prices and doesn't get anyone arrested.
>Selling shoddy merchandise
>Price-fixing
>Driving competitors out of business through predatory tactics
>False advertising
>Shutting down all U.S. production and shipping jobs to the Third World where there are no protections for workers
>Raping the environment and ignoring the environmental impacts of their products
>Lobbying Congress and the White House to get even the lightweight legal restrictions on them lifted
>Resisting health and safety measures
>Reducing the quality of customer service
>Forcing employees to make concessions on wages and benefits
>Replacing full-timers with part-timers and temps, and in general harming the middle class
>Playing upon Americans' ignorance of how the income tax system works in order to claim that the corporate income tax is driving them out of business
>All the while insisting that top executives deserve multi-million dollar compensation packages
--you name it, they've done it, and I probably haven't listed everything they've done.

These practices have become the rule rather than the exception since the Reagan era.