Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines collectivism as:
1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Collectivism doesn’t automatically have to mean fully and/or forcefully sacrificing the individual for the greater society, nor does it have to involve a person losing all sense of individual identity. Just as individualism need not be carried to the extreme where the individual is all that matters and the community is reduced to having virtually no collective voice at all.
Why must we advocate extremes for our economic model as Ayn Rand surely does when she argues that businesses should remain absolutely unregulated and unlimited by government? Neocons and Libertarians (albeit for very different reasons and expected outcomes) put this ideology into practice by continuously pushing for privatization and fewer restrictions on businesses. Some limitations are necessary, at least out here in reality where Big Business can’t seem to keep its paws off Washington, and corporations are aggressively driven to increase profit margins while remaining largely unencumbered by ethical regulations or codes that are consistently and diligently enforced. A few well-placed and carefully crafted laws and regulations indeed are necessary for humans and the business realm to co-exist in relative peace and harmony. Too many regulations on businesses suppresses commerce and fair trade, but the absence of specific and appropriate core regulations results in the Big Business realm, and the corporations that spring from it, gaining a disproportionate comparative advantage over humans and our social realm.
One end of the scale is vulnerable to corruption where governments overpower and control the business realm, which we commonly refer to as Communism (though the Marxist vision has never been realized – calling it Totalitarianism may be a more fitting). The other end is vulnerable to corruption by way of unchecked and unlimited growth and power among select corporations, over time allowing the business realm to eclipse, overpower, control and corrupt governments and peoples, which we commonly refer to as Fascism. More specifically, it is called Corporatism.
In a 2002 article titled “What is American Corporatism?“, it is described as “socialism for the bourgeois.”
Now, what is a corporation? Here’s one explanation from the film “The Corporation” (see its right panel to watch all 23 chapters). Basically, it is a business entity on paper that exists because we collectively agree it does. Much like money and credit. It is not a thing or a solid, tangible object and is therefore incapable of experiencing emotion or respecting anything. A corporation is amoral and ethically-detached by design. It is merely a concept held together by agreements on paper recognized under the law. Ran by people. What separates corporations from other types of businesses is summed up nicely on wiseGEEK:
In a general sense, a corporation is a business entity that is given many of the same legal rights as an actual person. Corporations may be made up of a single person or a group of people, known as sole corporations or aggregate corporations, respectively.
Corporations exist as virtual or fictitious persons, granting a limited protection to the actual people involved in the business of the corporation. This limitation of liability is one of the many advantages to incorporation, and is a major draw for smaller businesses to incorporate; particularly those involved in highly litigated trade.
A corporation may issue stock, either private or public, or may be classified as a non-stock corporation. If stock is issued, the corporation will usually be governed by its shareholders, either directly or indirectly. The most common model is a board of directors which makes all major decisions for the corporation, in theory serving the best interests of the individual shareholders.
In a capitalist economy, we know all about how businesses are supposed to compete with one another for humans’ currencies in a fair and free trade environment, and consumers are supposed to decide the market trends by voting with their dollars. We like to believe that everybody is free to take a shot at becoming successful and that your hard work is justly rewarded in a capitalist economy. Indeed it’s an ideal I share, but that is not what we have. Something inside keeps telling me it is possible and may someday be realized, but what we are currently experiencing is drifting away from capitalism as we thought we knew it. The (not-so-)new game in town is called Corporatism and it is what happens to a Capitalist economy that has allowed its corporations to morph into “corporate citizens.” (See the article “Abolish Corporate Personhood” to learn what all this entails and how this has been taking place slowly over the last 100 years, with critical corporate affairs kept in the background and increasingly leached from the mainstream public view, with corporate power initially inching and in recent decades lunging ahead to the point we’re at now.) All of this has transpired as U.S. history unfolded all around us, and many of us had no idea.
So what’s the actual problem here? First off, major corporations, particularly many of the older ones, have gained such a tremendous comparative advantage in relation to actual humans. Secondly, corporations exist in a sort of metaphysical realm because they are conceptual, and therefore intangible, yet claim entitlement to human rights anyway. Corporations are recognized in the eye of the law despite their metaphysical nature. This is what I and others mean when we refer to corporations as “super humans” because essentially that is what they are recognized as and have become, with we the people losing out as a result because it is a losing struggle for the vast majority of people who attempt to compete with established corporations.
It may feel weird to think of corporations as a “they” or an “it” since it is truly neither and yet both. How confusing is that, right? Now we know where the idea of “up means down” and “white is black” originally stemmed from; a corporation is the ultimate contradiction in terms because we have allowed it to exist in both the economic and social spheres simultaneously, acting as a free agent while being “granted” rights otherwise exclusively claimed by human beings and originally intended to govern only human interactions. Major corporations have grown into “super businesses” essentially by cornering the market and claiming access to human rights without applicable restrictions or liability, basically rendering them “super human” under the eyes of the law. A combination of “Super human” and “Super Business” strength and status has become the trademark of major multinational corporations today. (Think about that.)
Corporations have a tremendous comparative advantage over the vast majority of humans on this planet. This advantage is not shrinking nor has it in the last several decades; it has been growing.
For example, a corporation can’t be sent to prison or executed for its wrong-doing. Its executives can, but our criminal justice system and judicial branch have the nasty habit of treating corporate executives with kid’s gloves and doling out relatively trivial sentences and/or fines. This is a sign of corruption within our government and courts that comes about when Big Business wields enough influence and power to encourage the scale of justice to tip in its favor. Now days, if an executive does go to jail for corporate corruption and fraud, he is never housed with the violent offenders or placed in a maximum-security prison but instead is whisked away to a Club Fed-style prison where he receives cushy amenities that half us don’t have access to out here in free society!
That right there has always flipped my frickin’ switch. We routinely bitch about average thugs and drug offenders up in prison having access to the Internet and/or cable television, but most are completely oblivious how the rich have it hooked up in THEIR minimum-security prisons. Forbes put out an article in 2006 that includes a slideshow of the “12 best places to go to prison.” Yeah. Check out the amenities the rich folks and corporate clowns have access to after committing federal offenses:
- A ‘wellness’ program, which focuses on nutrition, aerobic exercise and stress reduction is available at FCI Ashland’s minimum-security satellite facility in Kentucky.
- They can “blow off steam by playing pool, ping-pong or even foosball” at FCI Englewood in Colorado.
- Inmates can stay in shape using a full gym and tennis courts at FCI Lompoc in California.
- They can “study to be personal fitness trainers or landscapers” at Sheridan’s satellite campus in Oregon.
- FPC Yankton in South Dakota (a former college) is “a stand-alone camp offers inmates music lessons and intramural team sports.”
Makes your blood boil, doesn’t it? Sounds like a resort compared to what most imagine (or have experienced) prison to be, right? Something we might even actually pay for voluntarily out here in the real world. Personal fitness training? Tennis? Access to a full gym? Hell, I paid $700 last year for a gym membership and time with a personal trainer (not that you could tell now). Isn’t that some shit? And that’s their punishment!
Not to mention that these corporate criminals are usually handed short sentences, oftentimes for 2 years or less. Did you know that the average (mean) sentence for drug offenders in 2000 was 75.6 months? (The median sentence was 55 months.) That’s roughly 4.5-6 years typically served for non-violent drug offenses. IN CONTRAST, according to the Yale Law Journal, “in fiscal year 2005, the average federal sentence for fraud was 23.6 months’ imprisonment.” It goes on to say:
In 1995, the average federal sentence for persons convicted of fraud was 18.3 months’ imprisonment, and the median sentence was 12 months. By 2005, the average had increased to 23.6 months and the median had increased to 15 months. That represents an increase of only 5.3 months for the average fraud sentence.
Interestingly enough, those quotes come from arguments being drawn up to dispute lengthier sentencing on white-collar crime as being too tough. Why? Because corporate criminals can afford legal teams to aggressively defend their selfish interests and affect legislation favorably, quite unlike most of us common folks.
See one way the scale has been tipped to favor corporations? This is done by using their accumulated wealth and pervasive public influence to lobby for lenient measures to benefit Big Business and by offering incentives to those government officials willing to comply and/or shut up.
What tools do we humans collectively possess to re-level the playing field and tip the scale of justice back in our own favor?
We can’t have corporations claiming “super human” status (via personhood entitlement “granted” unlawfully) and real humans co-existing in a society (or perhaps even on the same planet) without some sort of regulations and restrictions, lest they enslave us humans via corrupting our governments and controlling commerce and employment. Likely all of us in one way or another will eventually experience oppression if corporations are left to their own devices and allowed to pursue unlimited, unregulated growth and wealth. Not because corporations are “evil” per se, but because they aren’t true human entities, yet they are granted human rights and protected by laws intended for actual human beings AND are incapable of being held accountable as humans are. Corporations, by definition and design, have limited liability and are not held responsibility in the same ways that human beings are.
For current examples of the types of shit corporations are able to orchestrate to make the lives of their higher-ups that much cozier, read the latest rundown at the Corporate Crime Reporter. Here’s one:
A group of big business groups and corporate defense lawyers have launched a frontal attack on corporate criminal liability.They have hired the former head of the Enron Task Force, Andrew Weissmann, to lead the assault. Weissman is a partner at Jenner & Block in New York City.
And they have picked an obscure environmental crimes case as their vehicle.
The case is United States v. Ionia Management SA.
The company was convicted in 2007 of dumping waste oil and falsifying records and was fined $4.9 million.
The conviction was appealed to the Second Circuit. And there, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and other business groups, jumped in.
They filed an amicus brief arguing that strict liability has no place in the criminal law.
That even if Ionia had the gold standard compliance program, it wouldn’t have mattered in this case because the standard jury instruction was used – that is – if even the lowest level employee acted illegally, that employee’s intent would be imputed to the corporation.
And the corporation would be found guilty of the crime.
Damn, that’s slick. The corporations are slick because they can afford slick lawyers, and that’s part of the problem right there. Not because they merely can afford better legal defense and lobby Washington for what they want, but because of the comparative advantage it gives corporations over all of us. See, it’s not that they’re simply “evil” or being ran by “evil” people, but by sheer design corporations are greedy and competitive. That’s fine and even necessary to a certain extent, but when does it become excessive? I’d say when corporations are able and willing to create alliances with White House officials and skew the voting options with campaign financing, singling out two primary candidates of their own choosing and then intimidated people into believing they must choose one of the two, even when we know both to be “evil” and corrupted. Damn. Sounds like now, right?
We’ve created a monster…literally. Our forefathers warned us about this many times over (see the quotes on the right panel). William W. Cook originally wrote in 1893 in a book titled “The Corporation Problem“:
The particular evils to which they have given rise will be referred to hereafter. Some of the corporations have been guilty of bribing judges, buying legislatures, corrupting public officers, and sapping the integrity of public life generally. Some of them have taught men that dishonesty is respectable and even honorable, provided it is successful. Some of them conduct business, not on a basis of honor, but on that of knavery. Some of them perform contracts only when it is more profitable to perform than to violate. The sense of honor of some of them does not inspire that easy confidence and mutual good faith which lie at the basis of most business transactions. Written contracts are not always strong enough to hold them, and the fear of the penitentiary not always able to deter them. The pole-star of the existence of many of them is, not what is honest, but what is profitable, and the result is that not only are corporations a source of alarm to the conservative, and a subject of doubt to the thoughtful, but there is a deep-seated hostility against them on the part of the plain people of the land.
Benito Mussolini’s quote comes to mind:
“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
My dad and I actually discussed this very topic the other night. He said basically that in Italy the government took power over the corporations, and he has trouble relating that to our current situation here in the U.S. The difference is only which has power over the other, but the end results are the same. In the U.S., major corporations have slowly ascended on and are taking control of our government. Why? Because it serves their interest. By tolerating and accepting corporate personhood, corporations are legally entitled and free to grow and amass unchecked wealth, leading to monopolization and privatization until they finally become so powerful that they can choose to call all the shots and manipulate not only the market but also the human social sphere and our system of governance. They do this now and it will only continue to get worse.
Why?
That’s a complex question to try to answer. Well, first, let’s ponder this: what is ‘evil’? What defines evil in its core essence? In my thinking, it is the opposite AND/OR absence of ethics and humanity. Basically the non-ethical and/or unethical. Most of us understand what it means to be unethical, listing actions such as deliberate cruelty and torture as wrong and inhumane. Non-ethical has come to mean that which is neutral and absent of concern for ethics. Virtually all humans are capable of, if not also willing to, abide by codes of ethical conduct because it serves our best interest, collectively. Ethical conduct practiced voluntarily has the potential to improve the quality of life on earth for the vast majority of people (as idealistic as that might be). The potential is there and people widely regard measures taken in an ethical direction as good and morally-right. Establishing relative peace is widely considered among humans to be a lofty, worthwhile and appropriate goal.
Ronald D. Francis and Anona Armstrong, in an article published in the Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, briefly summed up morality and ethics:
Morality is about the beliefs and values that guide people in their decisions. Ethics is about the decision-making, and based upon an expressed code of values and of conduct.
So, what we basically have here is the same song and dance as experienced all throughout human history where a small minority seeks to corner a disproportionate amount of the wealth and thereby accrues the most power, using this privileged status to oppress the masses in order to both increase and protect its wealth. Whether experienced under Feudalism or within the microcosm of 18th & 19th century Southern plantations where white owners gained power and wealth by enslaving many and securing the cheapest form of labor possible, the results are fundamentally the same. Corporations, in keeping with the advancement of human civilization, merely represent a technologically-advanced and intellectually-driven means to this end. Technology isn’t the actual problem, nor is intellect obviously, but both have been manipulated and misused by those few seeking to secure more power for themselves and thereby shrinking what’s left for the rest of us.
What has happened here is that people have been -and continually are- actively manipulated and tricked (both intentionally and ignorantly) into blaming economic systems and wind up missing the bigger picture: It all comes down to power. Socialism overpowered by the government is called Communism; Capitalism overpowered by government and/or corporations is called Fascism. Fascism and Communism are a lot alike and could be considered twins. They represent the few governing the many in a dictatorial OR otherwise controlling fashion. The opposite of that would be what? Democratic governance by the people.
What’s so sad about it all is that the language has been so badly perverted and misused in an effort to confuse the people. Democracy means one thing to a Constitutionalist and quite another to an authoritarian president. Free Trade and Open Market mean something very different to the a true-blue Libertarian who values freedom than to the Neoconservative who values sheer power. You see what I’m saying? These words fly back and forth but we’re operating with conflicting definitions and aiming for different outcomes. Hence why nothing seems to make any sense anymore. Every time a politician opens his or her mouth these days, we roll our collective eyes in dread of having to decipher all the double-speak and listen to more fucking lies about our economy. And about everything else for that matter.
But is it a lie if you honestly believe it? What if you don’t fully understand what you’re even saying or being told? Corporations and their spokespeople do indeed strive for freedom -for themselves- even at the expense of the rest of us. They indeed do strive for “free” trade agreements that pander to corporate interest, which is to say it’s designed specifically to benefit them, even at the expense of pockets of people who must be exploited in order to increase corporate wealth. You see, the language is skewed not merely for purposes of confusing the public but also reflects the goals and interests of those utilizing the doublespeak. Dr. William Lutz, a professor of English at Rutgers University and author of the book “The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone’s Saying Anymore” offers these examples:
With doublespeak, banks don’t have “bad loans” or “bad debts”; they have “nonperforming assets” or “nonperforming credits” which are “rolled over” or “rescheduled.” Corporations never lose money; they just experience “negative cash flow,” “deficit enhancement,” “net profit revenue deficiencies,” or “negative contributions to profits.”
Financial reports are so confusing that I actually bought the book “Reading Financial Reports for Dummies” a couple years back to try to make sense of it. How dumb (and the book wound up being worthless). But how smart for corporations because it makes their financial information that much more inaccessible, especially for those of us not possessing the mind of an accountant. Banks are in collusion with corporations in this scam, as are stockbrokers. Now, that doesn’t mean every individual working for a corporation or a bank is knowledgeable of taking part in the scam, but those at the top certainly do know because they’re the ones who create and perpetuate it in order to increase their own wealth. They have privileged information and direct access to data that the rest of us lack, plus the ability to create alliances to facilitate negotiations with key industries in furtherance of promoting their own interests, which again provides a competitive advantage.
And oh, how this scam “nickles and dimes” citizens to death. Inverted interest rates where the poorest who lapse in payments and suffer with subsequent credit problems are the ones targeted for the highest interest rates while the financially successful and most “credit-worthy” receive the most rewards. Now days, interest rates are going up on most everybody, along with gas and food prices, and all while the value of the dollar ebbs downward. Our government colludes with corporations and banks in this scam by manipulating data and misreporting the actual rate of inflation, which misleads the public and results in investment decisions that turn out rather poor for the vast majority of people but wealth-inflating for those few with the most power. Major credit guarantors/corporations and banks work diligently to uncover legal loopholes in order to creatively screw the people out of their income, even those who in previous years were deemed credit-worthy and rewarded for being financially-responsible and frugal. This is what redefines the parameters of both camps -of those with means and those without- as more people slip behind on paying bills and are forced to let the bank foreclose on their homes, resulting in a shrinking middle-class and a rich few becoming richer.
One a sidenote: Printing more money does nothing to fix this problem. Nor do additional tax breaks and stimulus checks. What’s more, electing a new president is not a sufficient remedy solely unto itself, though electing a competent and capable individual who is loyal to we the people above and beyond all else and possesses an in-depth understanding of economic principles is definitely ideal (though neither Obama nor McCain qualify as such).
Sidenote #2: Obama scares me just a tad more than the other guy, but only because he’s so damned savvy and charismatic though NOT a ‘true’ Democrat. Not in the sense the people take him for. His conservative corporatist leaning worry me mostly, along with the ease in which he convinces American Democrats that he’s one of them, which isn’t the case at all. Right-wing corporatists were selected as his economic advisors. The other guy, McCain, acts like he has no idea what to say 80% of the time, giving the impression that he’s a mere puppet. But Obama is intelligent and manipulative; he can commit to absolutely nothing concrete in a speech but through his eloquence still rouse deep emotion in his audience. Not because Democrats are dumb but because they desire change so strongly and are overwhelmed by all the politicking that they can’t help but succumb to his shallow promises. Obama is an artist and he’s amazingly successful at painting glossy visions of prosperity and a return to rationality in the minds of Americans. We could do a lot better without either candidate.
Here is one interesting article titled “How to Rule the World After Bush.”
Corporations have one primary task: to make more money for its shareholders. In fact, corporations are legally required to do so. (Humans are not bound to any such financial obligation, but instead to our own survival and, to a lesser extent, our individual and/or collective pursuit of happiness.) If this involves lies and deception and/or human rights abuses, so be it.
Well, where do you go when you’re already extremely rich and powerful? OUT or UP. At this point in history, spreading outward beyond national boundaries (coined “globalization”) has proven to be unprecedentedly profitable over the last several decades. U.S. corporations go abroad in search of cheaper labor and materials so that they may lower the price of goods for consumers and manipulate technology to gain a competitive advantage against smaller businesses incapable of meeting such price cuts while still turning a profit. The small businesses go out of business after losing enough customers to a corporation like Walmart who gets to run the show and corner the market. This happens in small communities all over the nation, including my home county, and all across the world and we’re well aware. We say this is neither moral nor immoral but rather amoral, and then simply blame it on the market or chalk it up as an unavoidable consequence of living within a capitalist economy. But the fault does not lie solely with the market; much of it lies with poorly – and improperly-regulated corporations who engage in shady business practices that excessively and unfairly exploit people and resources, then hide behind moral and ethical neutrality as its defense.
Some of our best creative minds are employed to create illusions that divert us from the real issues and manufacture our consent. Beyond their products, the corporation sells us the idea of a better way of life and produces propaganda that affirms their power as necessary for human progress.
We the people largely remain ignorant of much of this and are left to struggle to connect the dots in vain. Why? Because not only are we NOT taught the truth but we are also intentionally deceived by our (corporate-owned) media and (government-ran) public education system. Those who do manage to connect at least some of the dots and point the finger at the responsible institutions face ridicule by being labeled as “conspiracy theorists” and “extremists.” Those who cry foul on the social injustice and environmental damage mounting all around us are discounted as “green-peace hippies” and “bleeding-heart liberals.”
“Radical” academic scholars who uncover evidence to prove these so-called “conspiracy theories” are in fact true find their journal articles minimized and/or shelved where they are effectively kept out of much of the public discourse. Since the government or corporations are generally the ones offering funding and grants to university departments, they greatly influence the type of (oftentimes biased) information produced and made available.
Also, the peaceful religious folks who speak out against the corporatist agenda are drowned out by corrupt “wolves in sheep’s clothing” religious elitists (like the weirdo John Hagee) whom self-righteously claim that THE god approves of their violent actions and remains aligned with their side unconditionally.
We allow this to go on because either we lack imagination and accept that this is how it must be done because this is how it’s always been done throughout our lifetimes or we’re intimidated to take action. Action requires numbers (scores of willing participants) to be most effective when the threat people face has a tremendous comparative advantage over us.
The challenge becomes figuring out a way to ‘tame the beasts’ enough so that the majority of people might regain their competitive advantage. One proposed solution to this is Socialism, which we’re constantly told is synonymous with Communism. Wrong. (See my past explanation on Socialism and Communism as socioeconomic models or read the much more succinct explanation offered on wiseGEEK.) Another is Capitalism sans corporations (at least as corporations are currently defined) or any other similar entity, achieved by restricting personhood and the accompanying benefits to HUMANS ONLY. (Question: Why do so many of us believe that a capitalist system must include corporations entitled to personhood? It’s as if we automatically assume the two must go together, when in actuality that’s a lie since corporatism destroys democratic capitalism.) Another possible solution would be to establish a mixed economy, as we currently have in the U.S., sans the corporations (just as under capitalism). Virtually all plausible solutions point to the type of economy most of us prefer NOT being the actual problem (so long as it is democratic), but instead the existence of unregulated and unrestricted corporations should be where we focus our attention. Either socialism or capitalism can be managed democratically, and most countries prefer blended economies. Economic models can and previously have existed without the recognition of, and subsequent interference from, corporations. We are only limited so far as our imagination and capacity for human ingenuity in developing new ideas and ways to create and maintain fair and relatively free economic systems that benefit humankind collectively and are sustainable.
What do we remember about exponential growth? (If not much, click here.) How does that apply to major multinational corporations and their unprecedented growth and expansion? Human labor is a finite resource. Our currency, designed to streamline trade, is collected through our labor and/or exchange of valuable resources. Valuable, exchangeable resources include goods and land. If we accept this to be true, how do corporations factor in? Well, a corporation is conceptual and therefore cannot actually engage in labor. It has us humans to do that for it, from the top all the way down. When a few attempt to corner much of the public monies created by our collective labor, we are left with all the labor and a shrinking portion of the money. There are lots and lots of us, but only a very few of at the top.
Greed is a potent motivating factor that should never be underestimated. (It’s not called an original sin for nothing.) The few humans at the top pulling the strings are affected by greed, as are the investors. Some more than others. Plenty of regular people invest not because they’re simply driven by greed but because they’re prudently setting aside their earnings for future needs and understand that our economic climate has shifted so dramatically that the most savvy investors in the financial sector and stock market can garner additional earnings (returns) that exceed the rate of inflation, allowing people to keep up with the times and plump up their savings so that they might remain competitive. Stashing away cash in a shoebox can’t compete with investing in quality stocks and bonds in this day and age.
Everyone from Suzie Orman to Warren Buffet instructs us on how and where to invest. We listen to the preaching, buy the books, and have been filled to the brim with numbers and charts and advice from financial analysts. They instruct us on how the game is played, but rarely do we ask ourselves who made -and continues to manipulate- the rules? Gee, it’s those with the most money and power, as to be expected. But do we understand why? Simply put, because they’re betting against all of us. We lose money on unsound investments (due to bad information or corrupted companies) and, just like after taking a hit at a casino, are greeted with a shrug and a “better luck next time,” forever doomed to listen to a litany of uncompassionate, indifferent remarks about how we knew there were risks involved when we decided to roll the dice.
Ugh. That’s so cruel.
How is it not when the dice are loaded in someone else’s favor and that someone else has insider information and creates the reports we based our judgments on in the first place?? How is it not when these entities possess more power than the entire collective body of humans on this planet because their CEOs have figured out how to swindle dollars and power from all of us and get to be the ones to decide how and where it’s redistributed?
This is what happens when humans are allowed free range to pursue power under the guise and protection of amoral “super human” corporations. It sucks enough when we’re dealing with the tyranny of a few elitists (as has repeated over and over again throughout history), but now the elite own all of our industries and control most of the market and wealth, which means they get to decide the rules of engagement for themselves, which involves commodifying everything under the sun and working toward enslaving us all. Corporations are driven to do so by their primary obligation to unrelentingly seek to increase their profit margins, padding the pockets of the fortunate investors and draining from all of us in the form of lower wages, fewer benefits, handicapping most small businesses and entrepreneurs who attempt to compete, higher prices (often accompanied by crappier craftsmanship and poor-quality services linked to their quest for ever cheaper labor markets, materials and creative ways to cut costs), higher interest rates, higher costs of living in general, higher taxes (yet lower for themselves), dumbed-down education, etc., etc. You can see where non-ethics or the absence of ethics really isn’t any better than that which is unethical.
It can also be argued that a non-ethical entity frequently attracts consciously unethical actions taken by people trying to increase their own competitive advantage in relation to this sort of system. I mean, think about it, what’s rewarded more within our present socioeconomic system: moral goodness or financial success? We know the answer without even having to stop and think about it. That’s indicative of what our system is now doing to us: it’s corrupting us all. Right along with everything else. Not because it necessarily intends to but by its very nature and the demands it puts on people. Selling out on our values constitutes being corrupted, as does turning our backs on our communities and our fellow man as we adopt more of an individualist, “every man for himself” approach to life.
Power corrupts. Both corporations and humans working for them are susceptible to being corrupted. The stock market becomes the major vehicle for corruption. Consumers and citizens wind up being corrupted through corporate-controlled media and a corporate-influenced public education system. Higher education has also fallen victim. In the case of the U.S., our major corporations (in collusion with our government and banks) are hoarding the collected monies and funneling a grossly disproportionate amount to the top corporate executives. This is obviously no secret. Our entire economy is becoming corrupt, along with others around the globe, creating an environment where one side feeds into the other, further exacerbating the problems and leading to the breakdown in our systems of governance. If allowed to continue barreling out of of control, this has the potential to seriously poison the quality of life for all of us. And what’s the purpose of living lives of insufficient quality? Especially when we know it doesn’t have to be this way.
Ayn Rand famously posed the question:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?”
Greed and insatiable money-lust occur because power is desirable. We each desire at least some measure of power, whether over ourselves or others. Many aspire for fame as well. I think a more appropriate question would be “what is the root of all power?” When more and more power pools at the top, the rest of us stand to lose out. Power isn’t generated out of thin air like money or credit because power is a finite resource. There is only as much power as there are humans. Money was created as a tool for trade and has no moral value all unto itself, but the greed for money exists because with it power can be acquired, protected and proliferated. Part of the human condition (that concept of “original sin” she detests so much) is the driven desire for power so that we may impose our will on others (i.e.- control) and/or protect ourselves from having the will of others imposed on us (i.e. – freedom).
What makes the whole thing so dangerous is that corporations and banks claim moral and ethical neutrality, yet they intimately and inescapably affect human lives. When powerful entities are left completely unregulated and unbound to ethics or morality, what do they become? It’s similar to what a human being unregulated and unbound to ethical conduct and morality becomes, only without a conscience to dictate its own actions. Only humans are capable of possessing a conscience as this is a trait specific to our species and is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Corporations are conceptual agreements and not human. They do not and cannot possess a brain or mind or consciousness or experience emotions. In other words, they are not capable of giving a damn.
But the people who run them are human, you say? True, but these people individually are limited in their ability to assert power and control over the corporation as a whole. We’ve all heard the saying that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and this is especially true in this instance. Major corporations with publicly-traded stocks are managed by a collection of people including shareholders and a board of directors where no particular individual has unilateral decision-making authority. If a person attempts to assert his or her will on the corporation and their vision is not cohesive with the rest or doesn’t demonstrate sufficient potential for profitability, that person may be canned and the job vacancy becomes open and inviting to another individual who is willing to toe the line and keep investors happy.
In conjunction with addictive or compulsive/impulsive personality types, the drive for power and money can get out of hand in a hurry if not checked. People do possess free will but we are also fallible, hence why we place restrictions on ourselves and elect a system of governance. We humans are not allowed to live completely unregulated and unrestricted because history has taught us that we are vulnerable to corruption, greed and narcissism, which too often leads to the oppression of others. This appears indeed to be the one fundamental trait humans and corporations share.
While we know corporations are incapable of possessing a conscience because a concept has no brain or mind of its own, we should keep in mind as well that some humans fail to fully develop a conscience. We call them Sociopaths (or Psychopaths, same difference, though not the same as Antisocial Personality Disorder) and they are believed to make up approximately 4% of the U.S. population. That’s approximately 12 million people. Even if only 1% of the population, as more conservative estimates suggest, that’s still a hefty number of people walking around chronically lacking the ability to empathize with others or honestly feeling empathy or remorse. In other words, due to developmental issues in their brains, they are rendered incapable of giving a shit about anyone else and are motivated predominately by their own self-gratifying interests. The sociopath is widely considered impervious to any rehabilitation attempts because the underlying issue is organic and not simply behavioral or cognitive, and that holds true no matter how much you love or try to change them. And no matter how convincing of an act they put on.
Most sociopaths are NOT serial killers like Ted Bundy, but plenty ARE employed in Corporate America where they frequently climb to the top, committing more than their fair share of white-collar crimes along the way. White-collar organizational crimes are arguably more serious than they’re typically given credit because they affect so many people’s lives and damage faith in businesses and our economy, yet these crimes receive much less media and law enforcement attention than, say, drug offenses. All in all, sociopathy is proving to be a substantive issue within the corporate realm and is a topic deserving far greater attention from both academia and the general public.
You see why people say this a global issue and not one that can be resolved by one lone country. To be combated, it requires a concerted effort among peoples and their governments spanning across many countries, if not all countries worldwide. So long as a couple of extremely wealthy nations continue supporting and encouraging the growth and expansion of multinational corporations, those rendered vulnerable wind up being exploited, oftentimes unfairly and excessively as with sweatshop labor and other near-slave conditions. The citizens of the powerful countries stand to benefit by maintaining a higher standard of living, but we don’t seem to get that we’re propped up artificially as a result of corporations screwing people elsewhere.
To wrap this up, I just want to clarify that my issue isn’t simply with the existence of corporations per se; it’s with the way limited liability corporations are currently organized and publicly-traded, allowed to remain detached from ethical concerns, and are demanding and receiving protection under rights intended for human beings by claiming artificial personhood, all which has led us into a corporatist state. There are responsible ways that corporations could be ran, assuming we ever find a way to get the current multinational blunders under control, and I believe the people running them should be held responsible and not merely fined for their human rights and environmental abuses. We the people should take back control and devise sensible regulations so that our small businesses may fairly compete and the people can improve their collective standard of living. Corporations are run by people, the boards of directors and stockholders, who are human and should be held accountable for their socially-harmful actions. To hide behind ethical neutrality and amorality as a defense while affecting the lives of millions of people is just as great of an offense on mankind as the tyranny of totalitarianism. Only corporatism in its fully realized state, I would claim, is a graver violation because it forces people to compete against non-humans in such extreme ways that our own TRUE personhood winds up being denied. Not merely denied recognition but denied existence.
Newsvine
