The Corporation is in Serious Trouble

[Hugo]

in fact, anywhere you witness people as a group pooling resources to produce roads, electrical grids, sewers and disposal, communications, etc then you are witnessing socialism in action!

Yes, it is very true that capitalism embodies the ideals of socialism (co-operation and mutual prosperity) better than socialism itself does. However, it is incorrect to state that your examples are "socialism in action." They are examples of "corporations in action." When people band together for a common goal, they have formed a corporation. It is the personal freedoms that capitalism grants that make these corporations possible. Socialism, which recognises no individual freedom or right of association, does not.

The difference between the "socialism" you give examples of and the "socialism" found in Marx is that the former is given freely and willingly, whilst the latter is coerced by violence and oppression.

thus the trend for the average household income adjusted for inflation decreasing over time and economic vitality going with it...

No evidence or citation, a far-fetched and unsubstantiated claim best held up for what it is: ridiculous.

particularly, they must be stopped from influencing our democracy in order to service their short term goals.

What are your examples of this?

I've got some examples of the opposite. Congress confiscated $100bn from the oil companies in 1980. The DoJ went after Bill Gates like a rabid dog. Bethlehem Steel was virtually driven out of business by environmental concerns. John Connally, who had more corporate backing than any politician in history, only got one delegate from all the primaries he entered.

The fact is that corporations have intangible power - money - and governments have tangible power - guns. Guns trump money any day. What happened when Nasser nationalised the Suez canal? How were the corporations able to fight back?

Your post shows a real ignorance of the way the lobbying system works. Companies can't pay a politician to advocate their goals, because politicians want re-election more than money. Companies have to find politicians who already support their goals, and back them.

This is why the tobacco industry has been beaten black-and-blue by government in the last 30 years. If what you say is true, then with all their money, wouldn't tobbaco companies be able to buy back some of all they have lost - advertising bans, public campaigns against them, public smoking laws, increasingly strict age restrictions, and so forth?

that's the job of government, to regulate the free market economy to ensure stability and safety over the long term.

Some ideas sound so plausible that they can fail nine times in a row and still be believed the tenth time. Other ideas sound so implausible that they can succeed nine times in a row and still not be believed the tenth time. Government controls in the economy are among the first kinds of ideas and the operation of a free market is among the second kind.

-- Thomas Sowell

[Bakunin]

You should watch the documentary "the corporation".

[Hugo]

You should watch the documentary "the corporation".

And you should spend less time watching sensationalist TV shows and more time reading good books.

[August1991]

I am belabouring this issue and promise to stop after this post. IMO, Marx's call for revolution led to some positive changes as well (redistribution/welfare states).

To discuss Marxism in the 21st century is tantamount to discussing Aristotelian physics in the 18th century.

In fact, anywhere you witness people as a group pooling resources to produce roads, electrical grids, sewers and disposal, communications, etc then you are witnessing socialism in action!

By that measure, General Motors is an example of socialism.

This leads to a broader point, entirely missed in that very silly movie "The Corporation", that the existence of corporations is indeed proof that markets don't always work. General Motors for all intents functions internally as a large ministry of automobile production. Taken alone, it is a mini command economy (albeit one surrounded by markets). Rather than criticize corporations, leftists should ask market defenders why corporations exist at all.

The State is another matter. It typically relies on non-voluntary relationships. In simple terms, individuals under the name of the State have the right to seize you or your property whether you agree or not. I believe this was the basis of the American revolution (against a British monarch) and also the basis of the American Bill of Rights.

[August1991]

if company A decides to move some form of its operations offshore in a cost cutting move then that's beneficial for company A. but there is economic impact to moving these operations out of the local economy. if the local economy is company A's market, then people have less money to spend on company A's product. now if company B does the same thing then maybe that's fine too and works for company B. but what we are now witnessing is so many companies moving offshore and the economic impact is so great that the major market for these companies is disappearing. thus the trend for the average household income adjusted for inflation decreasing over time and economic vitality going with it...

I quote you at length garrett because what you have written is frightening in its economic ignorance. I fear many people share somehow your logic.

Consider this: Imagine I invent a new car that uses water for fuel and takes one person an hour to assemble. According to your logic, the economy would go down the tubes because all those car plant workers (and oil industry workers) would be unemployed and impoverished.

So, garrett, I guess you're against new technological innovations that eliminate jobs. IOW, you would prefer that we return to a world of caves and fire. And heaven forbid if anyone discovers a way to start a fire because that would eliminate the fire-keeper's job.

[cgarrett]

Yes, it is very true that capitalism embodies the ideals of socialism (co-operation and mutual prosperity) better than socialism itself does. However, it is incorrect to state that your examples are "socialism in action." They are examples of "corporations in action." When people band together for a common goal, they have formed a corporation. It is the personal freedoms that capitalism grants that make these corporations possible. Socialism, which recognizes no individual freedom or right of association, does not.

except that the 'co-operation and mutual prosperity' is only within the bounds of the owner, employees and shareholders of the corporation and are by and large not democratically elected or transparent. in fact, capitalism is by its very nature a tyranny and not democratic. and i think this is the point... that we have these tyrannies jumping all over us... some with their own tyrannical economies the size of small countries. corporations would prefer we abandon democracy for feudalism which is the environment where they would prosper most... although they seem to enjoy the savings of having our democracy pay for stuff like infrastructure and security!

hugo, would you say then that the influence of industry over our democracy is decreasing then? or just right? corporations are like super humans... no they don't always get their way but it seems that the right wing political machine is geared towards that end.

the basic question is this.... are we here to fulfill the needs of corporations or did we create them to serve us! think about it... it seems to me that corporations serve a select few.

[cgarrett]

well, august... not sure where you're going here...

if my wealth is tied up in oil or the auto industry then i'm finished when you're invention hits the streets...

when anything is free then its influence is removed from the economy.

of course, if i have a patent on such a product and can enforce it...

[August1991]

except that the 'co-operation and mutual prosperity' is only within the bounds of the owner, employees and shareholders of the corporation and are by and large not democratically elected or transparent.

Much more critical, the relationships between shareholders, employees and customers are entirely voluntary. If you believe a corporation makes "excessive" profits, then buy its shares. If you believe employees corporations are stealing, then sell the shares. If you think its products are over-priced, don't buy them. Nobody is forced to deal with a corporation.

we have these tyrannies jumping all over us... some with their own tyrannical economies the size of small countries.

In the case of corporations, what tyranny are you referring to? They cannot imprison me or tax me. They can only affect me if I let them. This cannot be said of the State.

If an employee of a corporation refuses to hire me or to sell me a product, it must mean that I wanted to work with him or buy its product. Trade by definition is voluntary on both sides. Both sides are free to refuse the deal.

if my wealth is tied up in oil or the auto industry then i'm finished when you're invention hits the streets...

So I guess we should go back to typewriters since all those secretaries lost their jobs (and have remained jobless) with the arrival of computers...

when anything is free then its influence is removed from the economy.

WTF? Air is free but the economy would come to a halt very fast without it. More practically, the invention of the wheel revolutionized life and the idea is now free to all. Nobody has a patent on the "wheel" and patents only last for 75 years or so in any case.

[cgarrett]

Much more critical, the relationships between shareholders, employees and customers are entirely voluntary. If you believe a corporation makes "excessive" profits, then buy its shares. If you believe employees corporations are stealing, then sell the shares. If you think its products are over-priced, don't buy them.

i get it... you guys just like to argue! august, you have said in other posts that capitalism must be regulated... what are you saying here, that my only tools are to buy the products or shares or not?! so is it ok if company A does want to imprison or tax me? or pollute my drinking water? or leave with all of some non renewable resource? or use infrastructure while leaving the tax implications to the employees and those who never even interacted with the corporation? do you think my not buying shares in the corporation or not buying the product is going to make any difference? the product is probably for some foreign market anyways!

gee, if i buy one share then i get one vote! if i have 51% of the shares then there is no voting because i rule! that's the tyranny i'm talking about. the controllers of corporations make big decisions regarding our economy everyday! i never voted them into power! i don't even know who they are! they're not required to tell me! they probably live somewhere else! so why are they making decisions for me? i thought that that was what my democracy was for...

nobody implies in this forum that the free enterprise system or capitalism should be done away with... its just not to be left alone to do what ever it pleases.

[maplesyrup]

I wonder if corporations overall do more harm than good in our society and perhaps we might consider abolishing them. Maybe a good topic for another thread.

[Hugo]

Rather than criticize corporations, leftists should ask market defenders why corporations exist at all.

Corporations are not really socialist. For one thing, they reject the primary maxim of socialism, instead, they say "from and to each according to his abilities".

hugo, would you say then that the influence of industry over our democracy is decreasing then? or just right?

It's one of those things that keeps coming up. Back in 1776, American congressmen were complaining that delegates were shilling and selling their votes for land speculators and giving in to lobbyists, and George Washington himself was a member of a land speculation company. In ancient Athens, politicians were accused of much the same thing. Some things never change, and it's a common tactic of the left to claim that they've discovered something amazing (that everyone else actually knew all along) and that this something will be the doom of us all.

in fact, capitalism is by its very nature a tyranny and not democratic.

You have it backwards. A command economy, where you are told where to work, where to live, what to earn and what to buy is tyranny. Capitalism enables you to work, live and buy whatever you want. It's freedom. A system that depends on voluntary exchange cannot be tyranny any more than night can be day.

when anything is free then its influence is removed from the economy.

Incorrect. When anything is free demand rises higher than supply. You must have an infinite supply, or you will have infinite problems supplying. Healthcare is a prime example. There are queues because the service is free, so demand will always be greater than supply no matter what you do and we will never be rid of long queues as long as medicare exists. Come on, this is really basic economics. Where did you study?

the owner, employees and shareholders of the corporation and are by and large not democratically elected or transparent.

Government needs to be democratic because you cannot opt out. You don't necessarily need to have a say in who runs a company because if you don't like it, you don't have to buy from them or work for them. But you can't refuse to pay taxes if you didn't vote for the elected party.

To discuss Marxism in the 21st century is tantamount to discussing Aristotelian physics in the 18th century.

If only it were true. Like a bad hangover, the legacies of Marxist and even mercantilist thought are easily visible in leftist economics today. Every time somebody advocates the welfare state, that's the legacy of Marx. Every time somebody argues against outsourcing, that's the legacy of mercantilism. The left, quite simply, refuses to move with the times and remains mired in economic thinking that, at it's most modern, is 150 years old (and at it's oldest, millenia). People get stuck in familiar patterns of thinking. It's human nature to be afraid of change.

I wonder if corporations overall do more harm than good in our society and perhaps we might consider abolishing them.

Yes, you keep wondering that. In the course of your wondering, perhaps you could take the time to educate yourself on basic economics as well.

the controllers of corporations make big decisions regarding our economy everyday!

Such as when?

[caesar]

Healthcare is a prime example. There are queues because the service is free

Where did you get the idea that health care is "free"

We pay for it with our taxes and in many provinces our health care premiums. Even then it is only partially funded. Many services are not funded depending on which province that you live in. Chiropractors, physiotherapy, vision tests, dental health care unless hospitilization is required are not covered in BC. There is more, I am sure,

[caesar]

Every time somebody argues against outsourcing

That is a case of self protection. Why shouldn't we make sure our own people are employed and our money is spent within our own country whenever possible.

[August1991]

Where did you get the idea that health care is "free". We pay for it with our taxes and in many provinces our health care premiums.

Hugo's point is that there is no connection between the cash register and the service. Imagine you go to the supermarket, pay $100, then take what you want. (The food on the shelves is 'free'.) Now imagine that everyone else does the same.

Why shouldn't we make sure our own people are employed and our money is spent within our own country whenever possible.

OMG! Do you make your own clothes and "keep the money in the family"?

Corporations are not really socialist. For one thing, they reject the primary maxim of socialism, instead, they say "from and to each according to his abilities".

Have you ever worked for a corporation Hugo? IMO, they are Soviet command environments - desperately trying to cooperate by market means.

I wonder if corporations overall do more harm than good in our society and perhaps we might consider abolishing them.

MS, what about governments? Stalin? Hitler? Nixon? Bush? Did they do any good for anyone? (You can argue that the 'system' is bad and we need a true 'democracy' but I'll ask - what's that?)

----

I get it... you guys just like to argue! august, you have said in other posts that capitalism must be regulated

Arguing? It's a waste of time, IMV.

I rarely (if ever) use the term capitalism. Markets are not perfect. I'm extremely suspicious of 'regulation'.

so is it ok if company A does want to imprison or tax me? or pollute my drinking water? or leave with all of some non renewable resource? or use infrastructure while leaving the tax implications to the employees and those who never even interacted with the corporation? do you think my not buying shares in the corporation or not buying the product is going to make any difference? the product is probably for some foreign market anyways!

I quote you at length garret again. Argue? No, this is a discussion!

Pollute my drinking water. Well, corporations don't do that. You do it when you buy their products. But point taken. I agree with you.

Non-renewable resource? People husband rare resources. People work at corporations and own its shares. (Shareholders expect to resell their shares to someone else - presumably the shares will be desirable - and the buyers presumably feel the same. IOW, current shareholders are long term thinkers. Why are Mercedes more expensive than Hyundai?)

Infrastructure? Missed me there.

Look. If I buy a computer from Michael Dell, how are you affected? If I choose to see a Hollywood blockbuster rather than a Telefilm Canada production, how are you affected? If I choose to buy gas from Petro-Canada, how are you affected?

Corporations allow me to cooperate on a voluntary basis with people from around the world. No slavery anywhere. No taxes. No Grade 10 PhysEd, ie. no forced marches!

Corporations mean that I get to choose. Everyone else too. I think that's great.

Last question: How does CIDA operate?

[Bakunin]

Lets discuss seriously about the corporations.

Im not against corporations but when i analyse them and the way they are regulated, i dont fell secure. I dont want to generalize but sometime thei are scary and here are some sample of what i find scary:

1) We all heard of this at one point or another i guess, one town near where i live has problem with contamined water because of a corporation. It has been more than 6 month and they still can't use their water. the corporation don't want to pay for what they did and the citizen of the town will have to pay for decontamination.The citizen are really mad but they cant do anything about it... We also have heard of air contamination or kind of radiation or stuff like a part of a town near a corporation where their are a lot of case of cancers. These people die because of those corporation.

2) The goal of a corporation is to make money and sometime ceo doesn't feel responsible for their decision, In fact they don'T have to feel responsible because our society don't take them for responsible, in fact the responsibility ceo has is to make money. The CEO of nike has never visited a nike manufacture in china... How can he take rational decision if he dont see consequence of his act ?

3) A company was selling a product for the farm, A television show was making a report about the product wich they conclude that the product was dangerous. When the company heard of the report, they called the tv stations wich was fox and told them that if they pass this report they will stop giving ad contract to that corporation. Fox didn't want to lose its contract so they refused to show the report and fired the reporters... In this case, the corporation managed to hide information about their company product to its consumer. Why because they would lose money...

[August1991]

Lets discuss seriously about the corporations.

Let's!

Corporations are not "democratic". But all of the people involved in corporations choose voluntarily to do so. The workers/managers can quit, the shareholders can sell, the customers can buy elsewhere.

Governments are "democratic". This means the majority decides and individuals have no choice. The relationship is not voluntary. (Well, you can move. Easier for English Canadians but hard for 'French North Americans'.)

One town near where i live has problem with contamined water because of a corporation

A corporation is not a greedy person. A corporation is a cooperative and reflects the interests of many people.

The goal of a corporation is to make money

Bakunin, give me $5,000 cash (50 brown $100) and I will give you a personal cheque for $200. Do you agree? What is 'profit'?

How do you measure, Bakunin? When is good better than bad? Should we measure by lives saved? How should society decide? Horoscopes? I think numbers are a better measure. How about profits?

A company was selling a product for the farm, A television show was making a report about the product wich they conclude that the product was dangerous.

Here's an idea. A cashier makes an error and returns you more change. Should you tell the cashier?

If you do, the cashier will stay in the job longer making greater errors. If you don't, the cashier will be fired and the shop will lose less money (and the cashier find a better job).

Bakunin, bad news is bad news. When to learn it? At 23 years? Or at 54 years? The cardinal sin, according to my grandmother, is waste.

[Bakunin]

Corporations are not "democratic". But all of the people involved in corporations choose voluntarily to do so. The workers/managers can quit, the shareholders can sell, the customers can buy elsewhere.

i don't care if its democratic or not, i care if its a treat to my security has a human being. If its a treat then i want my government to protect me.

A corporation is not a greedy person. A corporation is a cooperative and reflects the interests of many people.

It doesn't change a thing, the american corporation contaminated the water source of the town and the citizen have to pay.

Bakunin, give me $5,000 cash (50 brown $100) and I will give you a personal cheque for $200. Do you agree? What is 'profit'?

How do you measure, Bakunin? When is good better than bad? Should we measure by lives saved? How should society decide? Horoscopes? I think numbers are a better measure. How about profits?

I dont understand what you mean. Im saying that the corporation goal is to make money. Its a simple fact and im not saying its good or bad. Then i say that im worried that those corporation hide me primordial information about their product like the fact that if i take it i could have a health issue related to it. Im worried that the media hide the result of their report because they don't want to lose money.

Here's an idea. A cashier makes an error and returns you more change. Should you tell the cashier?

If you do, the cashier will stay in the job longer making greater errors. If you don't, the cashier will be fired and the shop will lose less money (and the cashier find a better job).

We are talking about a product that could lead to cancer.

we are talking about a life of a human being and your talking about a cashier error ? i don't give a shit about cashier error. I think that a murderer is a murderer. Wheiter he kill you with a knife or by hiding information about his product. Maybe you don't care about your life but i would be willing to regulate corporation for the security of their customers. Yeah maybe thei would make less $ but i it wont make our economy collapse.

[Hugo]

Where did you get the idea that health care is "free"

No commodity has a cost of $0, but healthcare has a price of $0. Do you understand the difference?

That is a case of self protection. Why shouldn't we make sure our own people are employed and our money is spent within our own country whenever possible.

Because it damages the economy, creates unemployment and lowers real income. It's sad that I have to explain this yet again on this forum, but here we go, real basic economics coming up - again.

Remember when George W Bush moved to protect the US steel industry from foreign competition to protect US steelworker jobs? Now, Americans can't import cheap steel anymore. Everything that involves steel in its manufacture is going to cost more. When things cost more, people buy less of them. In the steel production industry, jobs will be saved, but in the industries that use steel, many more jobs will be lost. What Bush has done is to save 3,000 jobs at the expense of 30,000 or maybe 300,000.

Have you ever worked for a corporation Hugo? IMO, they are Soviet command environments - desperately trying to cooperate by market means.

The difference is that because the relationship is voluntary, they actually work. Because not everyone in the USSR wanted to be in a collective, the Soviet government was forced to use violence against it's people, and as a result they weren't terribly co-operative and didn't work very hard. The effects of their poor productivity were also hidden from them, because they did not see the impacts that their economic failure in the international market was having.

But yes, the corporation is essentially a collective. That's what "corporation" means. It's ironic that capitalism produces far more collective organisations and socialist sentiment than socialism itself. Look at the huge variety of voluntary organisations in our society: companies, social clubs, churches, charities, trade associations, trade unions, student bodies - the list goes on.

We all heard of this at one point or another i guess, one town near where i live has problem with contamined water because of a corporation.

I'm sorry, I thought we were going to seriously discuss corporations? If that's your argument, then I propose to abolish all government based on Hitler and Stalin.

I'm sure you can see your own fallacy.

The goal of a corporation is to make money and sometime ceo doesn't feel responsible for their decision

Entirely wrong. The CEO is held ultimately accountable and, if he is not doing his job well, the board of directors can fire him and any other executives they please. The goal of a corporation is to make money but making money depends upon a whole lot of things, one of which is public opinion, so it really pays for corporations to clean up their mess and play nice.

In this case, the corporation managed to hide information about their company product to its consumer.

And yet, you seem to have this information anyway. Where did you find it, your crystal ball? Tarot cards? Apparently the efforts of corporations to cover things up don't work very well, because their dirty linen is hung up in public on a daily basis.

i don't care if its democratic or not, i care if its a treat to my security has a human being. If its a treat then i want my government to protect me.

Based on historical precedent your government is a far greater threat to your security than any corporation. The fact is that the best agent of my own security and happiness is myself, and that means I need a system of individual rights as found in democratic-capitalism that will protect me from my fellow citizens and from my government.

[Bakunin]

I'm sorry, I thought we were going to seriously discuss corporations? If that's your argument, then I propose to abolish all government based on Hitler and Stalin.

I'm sure you can see your own fallacy.

I don't understand why you talk about hitler and stalin. We have all heard of a corporation that polluted water and air and they got away from their responsibility. It happend in many country.

Entirely wrong. The CEO is held ultimately accountable and, if he is not doing his job well, the board of directors can fire him and any other executives they please. The goal of a corporation is to make money but making money depends upon a whole lot of things, one of which is public opinion, so it really pays for corporations to clean up their mess and play nice.

Read my text again, Thei are responsible when it come to making money. But even if thei are responsible,they can get golden parachute. They get millions of dollars when they get fired. But the main thing is that their goal is to make money, if that mean to pollute a little more they will do it, if it mean hiding information then they can do it and they are not held responsible. If never they get caught well they take the corp money to get the best lawyer they can and you know how justice work. Anyway if they are held responsible its the corp who will pay not the ceo.

And yet, you seem to have this information anyway. Where did you find it, your crystal ball? Tarot cards? Apparently the efforts of corporations to cover things up don't work very well, because their dirty linen is hung up in public on a daily basis.

I didnt say the entire story... The reporter denounced fox and the corp. But we can easily understand that if a corp can force a tv stations to hide stuff then it is frightning.

Based on historical precedent your government is a far greater threat to your security than any corporation. The fact is that the best agent of my own security and happiness is myself, and that means I need a system of individual rights as found in democratic-capitalism that will protect me from my fellow citizens and from my government.

Based on my entire life and what i saw, i don't feel that my government is more a threat to me. I hope it dont get influenced by the corp and that it can protect me from them If it become a treat ill vote for another government.

as found in democratic-capitalism

You say "democratic-capitalism", you use the word "democratic" but when you talk you seem to talk about darwinism social.

Why dont you just say that corporation can be a threat to your security and its normal to protect us from them with law...... Just like someone can be dangerous, a corporation can be dangerous and their must be some kind of law for protection.

[Hugo]

I don't understand why you talk about hitler and stalin. We have all heard of a corporation that polluted water and air and they got away from their responsibility.

Alright, then it seems I'll have to explain this to you. What you are saying is that since some corporations act irresponsibly, rather than punish those corporations under the law we should distrust all of them and punish all of them.

So my analogy was that since some governments - like Hitler's and Stalin's - abused their power and murdered people, we should distrust and disempower all government.

Or, if you prefer, consider that we've all heard cases of private citizens committing acts of robbery, rape, and murder. This happens very often, "in many country [sic]", as you might say. Clearly, private citizens can't be trusted and they should all be permanently incarcerated, or subjected to a police state or something for our own good. Right?

Read my text again, Thei are responsible when it come to making money. But even if thei are responsible,they can get golden parachute.

They get a golden parachute because once one has been at the top it's hard to get work again. Without it, nobody would take the position.

If never they get caught well they take the corp money to get the best lawyer they can and you know how justice work. Anyway if they are held responsible its the corp who will pay not the ceo.

And where is the former CEO of Enron now? Jail.

I didnt say the entire story... The reporter denounced fox and the corp. But we can easily understand that if a corp can force a tv stations to hide stuff then it is frightning.

And yet, the story was made public anyway. More to the point, why do you find it problematic that corporations can influence a TV station but that the government owns a TV station (the CBC)? The irony that Fox is also a corporation also seems to have escaped you. You're objecting because corporatism didn't save you from corporatism.

Based on my entire life and what i saw, i don't feel that my government is more a threat to me.

Then you need to get out more, quite simply. Even though the Canadian government hasn't started murdering people, it has mired itself in scandal and corruption and precious little has been done about it. Where is your outrage against that? Strangely, you want corrupt corporations to be replaced by an even more corrupt government.

You say "democratic-capitalism", you use the word "democratic" but when you talk you seem to talk about darwinism social.

Examples of my social darwinism, please?

Why dont you just say that corporation can be a threat to your security and its normal to protect us from them with law

Anybody can be a threat to your security. I could be a threat to your security. This is why we have laws, but laws are to protect as well as punish. You seem to want laws that punish corporations, and as corporations are made of people, you basically want to punish people for working.

[Cartman]

And where is the former CEO of Enron now? Jail.

So Hugo, are you suggesting that:

A) There is no class bias in our laws.

There is no class bias in our policing (i.e. street criminals vs corporate criminals).

C) There is no class bias in the court system (i.e. OJ would have been acquitted of criminal charges if he was poor).

D. There is no class bias in punishment.

Anybody can be a threat to your security.

Can everyone inflict the same levels of harm?

[maplesyrup]

Bakunin's example of the water being polluted by a foreign (the foreign part is not significant, that it is is a corporation is significant) corporation in some town is an excellent example for the reason I suggest we consider exploring abolishing corporations.

My impression of a corporation is that it is a shell game, designing to avoid paying one's proper share of taxes, or to avoid taking personal responsibility, for one's actions, when things go wrong. Why should corporate executives avoid the reprecussions, when they destroy a town's drinking water? The only reason these people get away with it is because they are in a corporation. If it is not an activity that one would consider doing on one's own where one is responsible when things go wrong, then maybe one should not be doing it, eh!

Seriously, my impression is that these corporations are parasites on society. Why do we need them?

[idealisttotheend]

Seriously, my impression is that these corporations are parasites on society. Why do we need them?

I think corporations are a serious problem but tell me, how would we produce and sell automobiles without them? There is very little that we can produce nowadays as individuals. What we could produce as individuals or small buisnesses we would produce much less efficiently than could be done under large beauracratic structures (I hate beauracracies by the way).

(BTW given this, I wonder the new way for the left is to go co-op, I think that co-ops are the answer to the problem of self interest in corporations and also a way around WTO and MAI prohibitions on government rights, but that is another thread I suppose).

[Hugo]

So Hugo, are you suggesting that... there is no class bias in our laws?

In the criminal justice system and tort law, yes, absolutely there is. But that is not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of our legal system.

Whether or not laws promote corporate abuse is highly debateable. I submit that corporations are punished by our laws unnecessarily and unfairly already. I'll offer a couple of examples for your consideration.

The first is insider trading laws. There is no moral basis for this to be illegal (quite the opposite) and it's another hangover from the protectionist early 1930s. Insider trading laws basically state that it is illegal for an individual to use his knowledge to better himself.

Before it became illegal, it was up to the shareholders of a company to establish whether or not they would allow executives to trade on insider information or whether they would even allow them to own stock at all. One noteable railroad company paid it's CEO no salary at all and allowed him to own stock and trade it on insider information as a form of renumeration.

The second example is the old American revolutionary maxim: "No taxation without representation." Corporations pay taxes that would make you scream if you saw them, but they have no representation in our democratic process and are forced to resort to lobbyists to try and protect their interests. Only the executives of a company could be expected to vote for the interests of their company, and why should they have to give up their vote on their personal interests?

If corporations are to be denied a say in our political process (and those who would ban lobbying would completely muzzle corporate interests), it is only fair to exempt them from contributing to the demands of that political process. Anything else is tyranny.

Quite frankly, I feel that the social ills people blame on capitalism are actually the symptoms of a legal and political system that is still stuck in the 18th Century.

I suggest we consider exploring abolishing corporations.

I suggest you consider exploring reality. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who have voluntarily banded together for mutual benefit. What other such organisations will you abolish? Unions? Social clubs? Churches? Political parties? I'd hate to live in your world, where freedom of association is a pipe-dream.

[maplesyrup]

suggest you consider exploring reality. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who have voluntarily banded together for mutual benefit. What other such organisations will you abolish? Unions? Social clubs? Churches? Political parties? I'd hate to live in your world, where freedom of association is a pipe-dream.

This is a red herring.

We are talking here about the business corporations which impact on 99.9% of society, not some church where a few people go to worship.

Anything to avoid discussng corporate business responsibility or abuse, eh!