(no, not a double-entendre on the subject of sex, although the idea has a certain appeal)
This is only going to be about half a rant, 'cause Elmo will be over soon & my daily tasks await. But I’ve been lurking a lot lately & wanted to draw attention to a theme.
What do corporate America, political parties and organized religion have in common, besides being the subject of numerous SDMB posts? They’re institutions whose continued existence has less to do with the purpose they set out to achieve, and more with subverting the playing field and accumulating power. Their stated goals, often the topic of debate, aren’t really the problem - it’s the way they function outside of their immediate purpose.
When people slam on corporations around here, they are immediately accused of being Communists. Pshaw! I’ll agree with those of you who enjoy capitalism, I love having greenbacks in my hand as well - but corporations aren’t just about making money. Their size enables them to accumulate power. They operate anonymously, thus enabling people at the top to avoid personal responsibility. That’s the problem with them, not simply their profitability.
Same with the churches. Praying and having a relationship with God - those are good things! But then people created religions - first to worship together, and then to prove that their “team” was better than others’. Next to “convert” everyone else, thus solidifying their power.
Political parties do the same thing - they become less about achieving the goals they started out to accomplish, and more about accumulating power. The original goals are lost in their continued quest for growth.
Again, sorry this is incomplete. I find myself dodging in and out of arguments on these topics, and sometimes I appear to myself to have argued both sides. So that got me to thinking about what the real problem is.
Those at the top are the CEO’s. Not all that anonymous.
Not all churches try to prove their ‘team’ is better than others, not all try to convert people. Judaism is an organized religion, and thus an institution, but it actively discourages conversion into the religion.
Often a political party’s goals are power. Whenever a group of people get together and want their views listened to, they require power. Organization grants them a modicum of potency.
You don’t hate institutions, Fessie; you hate institutionalism.
Like this: First someone – a bunch of someones who think alike – have an idea, a concept, for how things can be made better. This turns into a movement. To make the movement more effective in accomplishing its goals, it structures itself as an organization. As the organization grows and becomes socially acceptable and P.C. and perhaps even an expected part of one’s social existence, it turns into an institution. And as such, its primary interest is in self-perpetuation as an institution, not in the idea or concept that it was originally founded to advance – and which it may even stand opposed to, now that it’s part of an established culture.
There is a cure for this social problem. And it’s implicit in the description of the problem’s evolution.
I’m with you on the political/religious aspect of this, but have to disagree on the corporate side. There’s too much competition for corporations to focus on power instead of profitability. Most of them are fighting tooth and nail for customers and market share. Yes, they have political influence, but it’s used to protect profit, not for the intrisic power aspect.
I don’t disagree with this, but in our Capitalist society, money and power are closely linked. I would also put forth that a corporation doing whatever it takes for profit instead of power doesn’t put them on any higher moral ground, in my opinion.
fessie is right about the people at the top avoiding personal responsibility. That might change soon, as they are in the process of making examples out of Enron, et al top execs.
I do wonder sometimes if large organisations/corporations/institutions sometimes almost become entities with a life of their own, demanding to be served in such a way that the benefit to any particular individual or group is not really all that significant any more, in comparison to the demands the entity makes (often of others).
Yeah Mangetout - thinking about the automotive industry, and the way Detroit avoided (attempted to quash?) innovation in the 1970s. Rather than acknowledge a changed world in the demand for smaller, more gas-efficient cars, they fought competition itself. Because they didn’t want to reinvent themselves, they wanted to keep the status quo.
I think big corporations do that a lot - often manipulating the public’s perception via advertising that preys on fears. I don’t see them struggling for market share, as Cheesesteak describes, so much as manipulating the marketplace in order to maintain the advantage. Which means they’re no longer in the business of supplying a consumer’s need, but creating it. Shoot, I remember in about 1977 telling the grownups behind the counter at McD’s that they ought to offer salads, and those ladies just laughed and laughed at me - they predicted it would never come to pass.
Polycarp I was in hopes someone would state my position more clearly . And the implicit cure is? (sorry if I should’ve picked up on your hints, but it’s just a little too vague for a Monday morning)
The problem you refer to could be called corporatism: when people begin to see themselves more as members of a corporation (not necessarily a business; the church and political parties are corporations in this sense too) instead of members of society, and begin to be under the delusion that the moral justification of their acts all relate to their benefit to the corporation, not society. Therefore anything they do that betters the corporation is good, regardless of whom, outside the corporation, it hurts.
Interesting. Have you ever read a book called Lila? In that book it is posited that big cities (in this case, New York) have become independant colossal beings in themselves. Cities don’t really exist to serve man, man exists to serve the city. A single man who does the city ill is disposed of the way a virus would be. Think of cops as white blood cells. In fact, think of all people as being blood cells, carrying energy to the various organs and systems of the city – the businesses, the ports and rail lines, the industry – all designed to help the Great Giant function and thrive.
Agree or disagree, but i find it a fascinating concept.
I have to admit, this seriously bothers me about religions. I cannot understand why (and I realize it’s not all religions, Judaism being one that doesn’t do it) *some * religions feel it necesary to harass, scare-tactic, persuade, cajole, and in any way hijack everybody else into their beliefs. I would really like it if all religions just did their own thing without interfering in everybody else’s business.
Perhaps not, but at least they remain true to their stated purpose, to earn the best possible return (managing risk, of course) on their investor’s dollar. There’s less of a tendency to turn into self-promoting power mavens, because while that is fun for a while, the competitor that IS focused on profit, customer and market will eventually grind you down.
Some companies and industries do go that direction, but they put themselves at serious risk. Even hyper-powerful companies can get humbled, look at US Steel, AT&T, IBM, and the US auto industry. They all wielded tons of power at one time and still had a major fall during their history.
Companies can be power brokers, but if they lose sight of their purpose, and exist purely to wield power, they will eventually get toasted.
To my mind, it’s the board and the principal shareholders who are at the top, and who are quite actively engaged in accumulating money and power. And I’m not seeing them taking it on the chin.
Perhaps someone more aware than I can remind us of how much of the world’s capital is controlled by what percentage of the population. Those folks are the ones the OP is referring to. And a large amount of them are uncomfortably anonymous to us hoi polloi.
Institutions can be good, though, because they also help to control and organize behavior. You’ve got 500 seperate people trying to worship God? Everybody comes up with his own way to worship, from praying, giving all you own to the poor, to killing people who disagree with him. poof Now there’s an institution, a church, which provides a structure for worship and belief, saying, “These are good ways to worship, and these are bad ways to worship”.
Or you’ve got 500 seperate people trying to help the poor. Everybody runs around trying to find poor people to help. poof Now there’s an institution, a charity, which makes sure that the money donated is spent effectively and goes to the people who need help.
. And the implicit cure is? (sorry if I should’ve picked up on your hints, but it’s just a little too vague for a Monday morning)