Why are corporations a present danger?

[coberst]

Why are corporations a present danger?

As a corporation grows older its power and wealth generally increases and its life has no obvious termination.

As a human grows older s/he generally loses power to the final end when all power disappears.

Do humans control corporations or do corporations control humans? As time goes on how does this power ratio change?

We seem to have developed a fetish (obsessive devotion) for commodification (making an entity an object of commerce) and reification (making an object of an idea). In other words, we seem to be obsessed with making more of what were human values into objects and making these objects valued in dollars.

In a world of such fetishes it seems to me that the corporation constantly gains and humans constantly lose.

What is the logical end for such a process? I think the logical end is that humans slowly morph into a machine controlled by our invented machines, i.e. our corporations.

[Cogwulf]

Corporations pose no danger at all, only poor management of them does.

On the most simplistic level, all corporations do is move 'stuff' more efficiently than could be done otherwise

[Da Blob]

corporations are, almost by definition, powerful immoral entities...

[Claverhouse]

Baron Thurlow put it exactly over two centuries ago:

'Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked ?'


The question of virtuous management is a red herring, since corporations are legally bound to pursue profit above all other considerations; and that they are given the status of a person in law.



Claverhouse :phear:

[bananaphallus]

I think your assertions are mostly accurate, and I would also agree with what you deem to be the 'logical end' to this absurdity slowly coming to fruition, with the forced/onward march of Globalization, the systematic saturation of all cultures and countries with western ideals - one enormous glop of contrived sameness is much easier to market a product to than a global melange of disparate interests and values.
I know it's trite, and probably one of the most hackneyed idioms of all time, but money
truly is power, and corporations/banking conglomerates run this world, not politicians.

Of course the other side to this argument is, what right do we have (speaking as an American) to deny the denizens of less developed countries the right to progress (by our definition), and force them to subsist as, for all intensive purposes, museum exhibits? Which course of action is more unethical: (I know, the arrogance is overwhelming)

Deny the people of say, Bhutan, access to first world luxuries/the ability to license and prosper from the proprietorship of these luxuries, so that their cultures and traditions remain untainted by Western ideals - or - Force it down their throats, and tell them 'you'll thank us later', knowing their standard of living will have increased, and their lives will generally be more 'plush' and comfortable.

[del]

Deny the people of say, Bhutan, access to first world luxuries/the ability to license and prosper from the proprietorship of these luxuries, so that their cultures and traditions remain untainted by Western ideals - or - Force it down their throats, and tell them 'you'll thank us later', knowing their standard of living will have increased, and their lives will generally be more 'plush' and comfortable.

Yeah, but I think it's important to remember that it's an either/or scenario, even though it might be for all practical purposes.

Bhutan could develop in a way that's commensurate with their preexisting cultural values -- they certainly have desire and the will. The problem is that it's difficult to get foreigners to send money over there without having a McDonald's put on every corner as a by product.

I think that's more a problem with us than it is with Bhutan.

[Felan]

I think multiculturalism is great. Uniculturalism is less great. The more perspectives on things one has or can tap into with diverse groups, the better the thinking/brainstorming/creativity.

Corporations can be boiled down to moving money and stuff around. But I tend to think of it as one big self-organizing puzzle/game that humans endeavor to excel at. The bad eggs are always the most prominent in thought and memory but the vast majority are not soul-sucking machines of infinite pain.

I think a greater danger than corporations, is widely applying the ills or perceived ills begotten by relatively a small number of anything to the larger body of that thing. You can substitute any number of things with equal ease.

[coberst]

An oligarchy controls public policy in America. The oligarchy consists of those who manage the great wealth of American institutions. This oligarchy designs our educational system to graduate good producers and consumers and does not desire independent thinkers.

CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.

A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.

In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.

Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.

An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.


“Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general. Why the few always tend to share more power than the many and what this means in terms of both a society's evolution and our daily lives. they examined the other 11 institutions that exert just as powerful a shaping influence, although somewhat more subtle: The Industrial, Corporations, Utilities and Communications, Banking, Insurance Investment, Mass Media, Law, Education Foundation, Civic and Cultural Organizations, Government, and the Military.”
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/12-dye.html

[walfin]

Humans control other humans. Corporations are merely an additional legal tool.

That said, the alternative to corporations (corporation here is used in the loose sense, i.e. body corporate which includes, inter alia, LLPs) is partnerships and sole proprietorships. Nobody in his/her right mind would start anything involving a significant amount of money without limited liability. Or perhaps that's the point you're trying to make - we should get rid of limited liability so businesses will be kept small.