Leftist opposition to the existence of corporations

Because don’t you know the mail guy’s opinion on how the business should be run is just as valid as some fancy Harvard MBA’s or some Vice President who has been with the company for 30 years.

I find it interesting how the liberals here create these straw men and stereotypes about corporations where if they actually were people, they would consider it some sort of racism. Corporations are like people in that they all act differently. Every company isn’t Enron or Haliburton. Often their objection seems to come from the company performing a legal business that they disagree with on an ethical level.

Does that seem inconsistent to you?

Just to clarify, I do oppose the existence of corporations as they currently consist under the law. I seriously doubt that meaningful reform is possible, and the best way to go forward would be to abolish those entities entirely. My main objection I suppose is that they are undemocratic oligarchies that create dissociative behaviors between members of the organization that bleed over into other aspects of those members lives and society in general. They are a cure worse than the disease. I feel other organizational models such as worker cooperatives or partnerships are being shown to perform better in every category and promote more ethical behavior, and most importantly, regard humans as more than just a cog in the machine.

Under the current system, the mailroom guy wins the lottery, buys out his company, and suddenly his values are the most important - why? Did winning the lottery give him vast amounts of business experience and industry knowledge? Did it give him important skills in leadership, management or strategic vision? No, it just gave him cash, which is the only thing that matters at the end of the day under the current capitalist system.

I suppose that is what makes me a leftist in general, and a socialist in particular. I do not see, nor want, money to be the end all be all of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I value an infinite number of things more important to life than money. Money is just a fucking tool. It is an accounting trick. But capitalists create the perversion that money, not the true tangible wealth it represents, as the most important aspect of an economy and society. And so we end up a shitload of shiny coins, and crisp new bills and databases filled with glorious numbers while our roads, buildings, knowledge, skills, and abilities atrophy and wither away. And the modern corporation is the epitome of modern capitalism.

So am I afraid? I suppose I am fearful of organizations that hire people to just be mindless cogs in a mindless machine that wants them to remain ignorant of what exactly that machine does on a day to day basis. I suppose I am fearful of companies that make people prostitute themselves just to make a few dollars so they can buy a few shiny toys to make them forget the majority of their day is being spent not doing a damn thing to make the world better, only ‘richer’. I suppose I am fearful of corporations that exist for no other purpose than to enrich anonymous shareholders whose only qualification for ownership is cash, shareholders who have not invested anything tangible in helping make the corporation succeed, but who claim all the returns it makes and in the end, more often than not, get screwed by the agents they ‘hired’ since the corporate model is an exercise in unaccountability.

Is every corporation like this? Of course not. Most small and medium privately held enterprises are corporations in name only with conscientious owners and a small group of employees where everyone does know everyone else and there are no mindless drones, but often friends and family working together to provide a good product or service. But the corporate model is also a hindrance as well as a benefit to those groups. The employees are not associates or partners, and when an owner retires or has an unfortunate demise, there are no guarantees the next owner will be as conscientious.

And while those types of corporations are the actually majority in this country and most other Western economies, a few large corporations control the majority of the assets and turn society itself into an undemocratic oligarchy. A few large corporations pervert the model and use it as a sword as well as a shield and conduct operations that are best described as evil, but are still legal, and will likely remain so since they have bought enough of the politicians.

And there is a difference between evil and unethical. There are many forms of business/types of commerce that I find unethical, but not evil. Unethical just means they are amoral. The only thing they value are themselves. Self-interest par excellence. As long as they are kept honest and people know what to expect, if they can find enough suckers to keep them in business, so be it. Evil for me is a willful disregard for life, actively causing needless pain and suffering - something that the corporate model makes far too easy to accomplish. Relying on some small supplier to do the actually dirty work is no different than hiring a hit man rather than pulling the trigger oneself. The victim is still dead (or maimed or mutilated) because of ones actions.

Both behaviors will occur regardless of what organizational models we choose, but it would help to choose one that makes it less likely to occur, not guarantee that it will.

And finally, I have no problem with commerce and free enterprise though I do believe that society’s interests as determined through democratic processes outweigh any private interests in those cases where they conflict. (And yes, I know that is not the American way. The United States will never be a socialist country. I am only hoping to prevent the contagion from spreading…) So while everyone should have the privilege of engaging in commerce and be able to use whatever legal model is available for doing so, I prefer models that are democratic and empower their associates and abolish those that are neither.

And I do see some great reforms taking shape. I do think corporations are entering their sunset years. The next generation will have an entirely different mandate for commerce besides maximizing shareholder return (and executive salaries). Fair trade will take precedence over ‘free’ trade.

You can’t see the difference? Some people think firearms are unethical, but the nice folks at Smith & Wesson aren’t doing anything illegal by making them.

Clearly you have never worked for a law firm or Big-4 accounting firm.

Except that is a stupid example. If the mailroom guy does not run his new company effectively, it will go out of business. Most people who run companies under our current capitalist system have either built them from scratch or spent most of their adult lives educating and working their way up in one.

Money is the physical representation of the value of your labor. Having money allows me to exchange the fruits of my labor for the things that I find important in life. Living in a safe neighborhood near people with similar values on work and education. Being able to travel and experience things. Putting food on my table and a roof over my head. You lefties seem to think money just sort of appears out of nowhere. That is why it’s all “intangible” to you.

The reason corporations “get away with stuff” is because the modern corporation is the most efficient mechanism for converting raw materials into products people want and need. When it comes down to a choice between punishing corporations and maintaining a standard of living, people always choose the latter.

Mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps were completely legal. Do you maintain they were also ethical?

When the swaps sold were equivalent to 10 times the amount of money in the world, i would call it fraud. They were selling insurance ,that if something really bad happened, they could not pay off. They knew they could not pay it off if a housing crash came. It did and the tax payer had to pick up the cost. The masterminds have skated and still got huge bonuses and salaries. Why not commit fraud if you will not be prosecuted?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?_r=1 Corporation profits set a n historical record this last quarter. They have removed themselves from the problems of the economy.

No, but I am familiar with them. And I stand by what I said. I prefer them over corporations. I always found it interesting how historically when professionals established a firm to work together, they usually chose to create partnerships rather than corporations until the tax advantages outweighed the other benefits of not incorporating.

Yes. It was meant to highlight the underlying stupidity of the present system. It may be a stupid example, but it is not an invalid one, and similar instances are all too common, though stupid and money going together has been an issue long before corporations were created and will be long after they are gone, again, it helps to create institutions that do not make it so easy for them to team up.

Well, with the fractional-reserve banking system we have, and as the credit default swaps did in spades, it would appear that money does come out of nowhere… oh sorry, promises of payments from future revenue-streams… no wait - that is still nowhere. And that is where it returns to unless it used to created real wealth - goods and services that result in real income-producing items whether tangible goods like the computer I am writing, or intangible like the Internet were I am posting. And i would say the left emphasizes far more than the right that the true value of all wealth is the embodied labor used in creating it, which is why we tend to side with labor in deserving a greater return than those who invest money that often is literally created out of thin air. But the problem is not with money itself, it is with the value system that favors money - the proxy, the tool, the representation - over everything else, especially human rights (but hell’s bells if someone messes with property rights…)

Efficiency… the bread and butter of modern life. Forget equity or effectiveness or any other standard. Efficiency that creates a million products people really do not need nor would want if not for the billions spent on the incredible efficient advertisements, (what is the average response rate to direct mail again?) while products that people truly do need - anti-mosquito nets, clean drinking water, sewage treatment, medical care are ignored because there is not a high enough ROI to satisfy the investors.

If people were not willing to sacrifice their standard of living to punish corporations, then the Fair Trade, sweatshop and CSR movements would have died on the vine. I submit that most people are willing to make the trade-off when given the choice, but corporations obfuscate much of the information customers need to make informed decisions and enough of the market is paid just enough that they have to seek the cheapest price available rather than pay a fair price.

So much of the Fortune 500 has become self-dealing, and has sufficient capital reserves, I begin to wonder if shareholders are just kept as an historical legacy and to maintain the legal fiction. Honestly, I would think any organization would have the goal to become self-financing and only rely on outside money for expansion or redevelopment. All the real money is in corporate bonds anyway. The Dow Jones is the most meaningless index I have ever seen. But it certainly keeps the sheep entertained…

The concept of MBSs and swaps are not unethical. However the implementation was a combination of fraud and incompetence.

Partnerships work for law and consulting firms because the primary asset the firms are selling is the intellectual capital of the partners and associate professionals. It makes less sense for product based companies because revenue typically can’t be traced back to a specific professional.

I can’t speak to whether one model or the other confers significant tax advantages.

Now you have expanded the scope of this discussion beyond the mere existence of corporations into a general, unfocused tirade about the economy in general.

Really? You can’t find a mosquito net in a local sporting goods store? Your supermarket doesn’t have bottled water? There are no hospitals or sewage treatment plants in your town? Where do you live?

It is not a question of whether corporations should exist. I don’t know anybody who thinks the concept is wrong. They just have morphed into something harmful to our country. I want them regulated and policed. I want them responsive to stockholders. I don’t want corporate execs setting it up so they can determine their own salaries and bonuses. They are way out of line.
They are also politically powerful and will fight dirty to maintain their power. it would require a huge movement to bring them back in line. It won’t happen. We have a plutocracy for the long term future. The rich have won.

I plant 1,000 kernels of corn. Several months later, I now own 1,000,000 kernels of corn. Who did I steal them from?

“i would say the left emphasizes far more than the right that the true value of all wealth is the embodied labor used in creating it, which is why we tend to side with labor in deserving a greater return than those who invest money that often is literally created out of thin air. But the problem is not with money itself, it is with the value system that favors money - the proxy, the tool, the representation - over everything else, especially human rights (but hell’s bells if someone messes with property rights…)”

I see this a lot. Labor is composed of people who are “real”. They know what is most important in life, much moreso than those stuck-up CEOs with their fancy business degrees. They just care about money! Oh, and labor wants more money, too.

Why should it matter where I live? The all-efficient corporations should deliver products and services wherever customers wish, right? maybe if you are in an industrialized nation. If you live in a shitty third world country, corps tend to more concerned with what they can take out, not what they can bring to the market and they definitely have no desire to develop markets. Corporations claim the right to operate anywhere and everywhere across the globe, so I will judge them by their operations anywhere and everywhere. It does not matter if I can purchase goods, are the people who need to purchase those items able to?

The statement that corporations are the ‘most efficient mechanisms’ for any purpose other than making oligarchs rich is simply not true. The most exploitative mechanism perhaps, but I have yet to see evidence of this claimed efficiency, even though that is the most common rationale for their most egregious behavior. Sorry, too many years in the business world and business school to fall for that line anymore.

cough, cough…

What do Democrats do with and how do they run their corporations?

Well, the evidence is that I live in a modern, industrialized country and have the option of walking down the street to buy a mosquito net. Have you given much thought as to why those shitty third world countries are so shitty? All these modern conveniences we Americans take for granted didn’t just pop out of thin air. We have them because we have created a framework for people to consolidate vast amounts of capital for the purpose of inventing, producing and distributing products.

Guess it didn’t take.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html?_r=1 Like this. It is possible to care about workers and the environment and make a lot of money.

Oh, you mean like Arthur Anderson? Snigger, chortle. Oh, and what about those big corporations that sold pension fund managers so-called “AAA rated” mortgage backed securities that they KNEW were full of bad debt and were actually nearly worthless? Oh, THOSE corporations? Exceptions to the rule! Like the ones giving insider knowledge about IPOs to big clients … but hey … we got Martha Smith for that one, just like we got Bernie Madoff for the sins of Wall Street … that’s the ticket … let the rabble have one of yours and the rest walk off scot free!

Well, yeah, as a matter of fact. It’s partly why I am posting in this thread.

This argument might have had some validity if modern corporations limited their activities to industrialized countries, but they do not, and a vast majority of the natural resources they consolidate into capital come from those shitty countries. Corps have no problem traveling the world to acquire whatever they need for whatever purpose they can get someone to pay a dollar for, but when people actually need to buy the end products, the shop ain’t closed - it was never open to begin with. But hey, as long as its available on the Magnificent Mile, all is good… its their damn fault they don’t live there, right?

Nope. And I am damn grateful. I almost got sucked in the mid-90’s, but came to my senses around '99/00. The ‘Battle in Seattle’ was bullshit, but that and the sweatshop issues playing out at the same time did lead me to re-examine capitalism and corporate behaviour. Then returning to college to study for a business degree as a ‘non-traditional’ student let me see how much bullshit they try to indoctrinate students with as part of the standard program, For example, the way how they mention sole proprietorships and partnerships in the introduction to a course, then spend the rest of the semester acting like Fortune 500 corporations are the only entities that exists.

Granted they do teach a wealth of good quantitative information, but damn they make you swallow some serious bs along with it. And the best part is how they emphasis critical thinking skills - just don’t apply it to our curriculum…

I switched majors to Accounting and Organizational Behavior/Development with an emphasis on non-profits/NGOs. Outside of those textbooks, cooperatives are not even on the radar. Bit hard for future MBAs to learn about alternative models when they are not even in the syllabus. Hell, independent research is the only way I learned how European corporations operate, even though odds are fair that a good percentage of those MBAs will work for a European or Asian firm.

A large influence has been the Buddhist idea of Right Livelihood, and doing much meditation, reflection and reading on what that means in modern society. It was not that hard to come to the conclusion that corporations and the Eightfold Path* are not that compatible.

And so while most leftists in America and Western society hope to somehow reform the beast and tame it, I just want to shoot it dead and starting hunting for a better creature to do our bidding.

*yeah, still have a lot of work to do on that whole Right Speech area.

Does anyone study the economics of cooperation, AP? Has anyone noticed that when humans merge their energies towards a common goal, from the Shakers to the* kibbutzim*, a “force multiplier” effect appears? If it works for Sun Yung Moon, why wouldn’t it work for the People’s Republic of General Motors?

I haven’t any doubt that a sense of ownership increases human dedication and productivity, I’ve seen it in action. And if it exists, it would be measurable if we but had the means to measure it.

Got any ideas? Or is this the kind of thesis no econ major would dare to touch, for fear of the taint of Marxism? Not the kind of thing you want on your resume if your planning a banking career, I suppose.

It is definitely uncommon at most econ departments, but there are some heterodox schools out there. The more sociological or behavioral-oriented economists tend to end up in public policy departments. There is some major overlap between governmental and corporate governance.

Most US schools that have cooperative research centers tend to be too focused on agricultural co-ops, but I have found some good resources in Britain and Canada. The Centre for Co-operative and Community-Based Economy in BC has some good info I have used in the past and is a good starting point.

This book is my on wish list at the moment.

Unfortunately, my class notes and texts are in a storage locker at the moment, or I would provide some more specific cites.

There definitely is a need for a new econ textbook that more thoroughly examines alternative models. I can find paper after paper and book after book that critiques the current system, but I have yet to find a modern-day version of Marx, someone who has assembled all of those critiques and proposed a comprehensive alternative. (After a quick google…) The Economics Anti-Textbook definitely appears to be a step in the right direction.

Co-operative economics is an area that I am seriously considering for a post-grad degree. I am currently trying to decide if I want to apply for a graduate school and do some original research, or go work for an NGO and do more direct development.