Corporations are as evil as we let them be
Like all forms of society, ours has its pros and cons. Like all citizens, we complain day and night about its horrible effects on our lives. I am no business or political science major and am no more familiar with the inner workings of capitalism than the average Joe [or Jane]. However, I think [moreso sincerely hope] that my discussions can go beyond "Corporations are evil", "The government is screwing us over", or "We want better health care".
I can already feel your pouncing eyes on me. Don't worry, I am going to remain as impartial and practical as I can. It is my wish that this will spawn a healthy [and half-intelligent] discussion whether you agree with me or not. If there are no comments at the end of my blog, I shall rightly, with complete bias, assume that you all agree with me. There is no intent on unleashing shattering and enlightened arguments. My wish is to make myself feel a little better about the state of our society today [by tricking myself into thinking that there is hope].
Transparency is undeniably lacking in today's corporations. Corporations want to be run as independently as possible [it is within their character to do so] and would appear transparent only when it severs themselves. The government [and its citizens] cannot restrain the corporations' activities without knowing how they operate. Once this is clear [or becomes as clear as it's going to get], the government must crack down and impose strict regulations with heavy and meaningful financial consequences for incompliance. A $500K fine is not even a slap on the wrist [only a half-stern finger pointing] if applied to companies netting billions of dollars every quater. The fines must be substantial enough to deter them from ignoring rules. Stewardship is also important simply because what gets measured gets done. The government must keep a close eye on business areas and controls that they deem important. Another bonus to transparency is that it gives the public the choice of using their purchasing power as influence. If only we realize how powerful that is, we could force companies to be less evil.
The sole goal of corporations is to make their shareholders money. They are what they are unless governments and the public do something about it. There is no way corporations will change on their own. But there is hope that we will all awaken from our drunken stupor and realize we can, to a certain degree, control how companies run their business. We are the consumer and they want our money.
After what turned out to be some government bashing, I thought, why stop? Why is it that governments are so bad with money? They would run much more efficiently if they modeled carefully chosen parts of its operation after corporations. Hmmm, I dont' know what the point of my blog is anymore...
posted by ehbaba @ 6:34 PM
10 Comments:
uh....can you give an example of a country where communism actually resulted in benefitting the society as a whole?? cause i can think of....none.
To me, communism/socialism are great in theory, but human nature makes them impossible to carry out without corruption and want of power....which contradicts the essence and basis of that kind of society, making them more dictatorial than anything. Really, communists are supposed to be the most democratic form of government, but where do you see that happening?
how would you say china and russia were improved by socialism? i'm....rather curious.
i'm going to sound like an ass. but....i'm not, i swear!
technically, it would be a HUGE stretch to even consider china and russia communist, or even socialist regimes. they were not. to my knowledge, a true communist state has never existed in history.
i believe china's form of communism is refered to as maoism -- he believed that peasants would be the catalyst of revolution as opposed to the proletariat.
in russia, both stalinism and leninism are commonly used, as their idologies are quite starkly different from each other, least yet from true marxist communism.
in both examples, there was a clear consolidation of power, and ubiquitous privitization of land. these two factors alone make even socialism a reach -- one can forget about true utopian communism.
for the sake of conversation however, we'll not get too nitty gritty....
one could argue that they [china and russia] were better off during communism than they are now, but hindsight would indicate their situations now are *because* of their communist history, not in spite of it.
in the case of china, that wouldn't even be an accurate view. as a country, china is only now beginning to grow as they become more capitalist leaning, not more communist. china is *behind* other world powers because of the stagnant nature and stubbern pride of its communist history. they're now having to play catch up as a result, industrializing an entire generation behind other world powers.
for a more obvious case study, lets compare north and south korea. where would you rather live?
i agree that communism (socialism is a different beast) is a good thing. i'm a huge fan of marx and gramsci. but in practice.....it has proven unpragmatic for a myriad of reasons.
i think that only aspects can be applied realistically -- this is the same with any political theory. we don't exist in an ENTIRELY free market system, or we'd probably all be homeless right now. the rise of the welfare state is a prime example of a typically "socialist" compromise.
simply put, there's no such thing as a perfect political model being put into practice via government. not communism, not free market, not even a true monarchy (even during the middle ages, one could argue the crown of many european nations was controlled by the church).
in light of this, it seems trying to reach communism has historically been.....noticeably less productive than compromised systems such as western capitalism. the fact that i am typing this while in china, with their censored internet, they can't even read it, tells me there is merit to my generalized conclusion.
sorry, i don't even know you, hahaha
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oops
The comments have really exceeded my expectations. Now that's what I call healthy and intelligent discussions! Good thing I waited until after I read all your comments before I said something really obvious like "No true form of government would work because it would be run by imperfect human beings".
Good save.
"ending serfdom and colionalism"
under communist russia there were deportations of millions to gulags. is that repression any better than said "serfdom"? stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of untold millions via starvation. this is defendable...how?
and ending colonialism? are....you serious? that's exactly what the cold war was -- two super powers fighting through peripheral spheres. vietnam? afghanistan? they exemplify political colonialism.
and lets not forget the entire eastern euopean bloc that occured as a result of communism. the berlin wall is as real a symbol of communist colonialism i've ever seen.
as for "redistribution", you say that china has only been able to play catch up because of communism, how do you explain the fact that until they started implementing capitalist theory, they remained largely a third world nation?
china was NOT a super-power until they started to adhere to certain free-market structures, such as privitization of land and business. why is that?
"From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs!"
yes, the famous quote. but ask yourself -- during maoist china and stalinist russia, was everyone getting what they needed? was everyone giving to their best ability?
if the answer is no (and it is), it's because the ENTIRE CONCEPT of communism is that the government should be controlled by the people.
the periods of communist china and communist russia are exactly when the people had the LEAST amount of control over the government. they were dictatorships, pure and simple.
that's practical communism at work -- as cammie noted.
look at the facts instead of dwelling purely on rhetoric.
as for your final point....i agree.
as i said, the welfare state is a great place to be.
"corporate governments" would actually be the polar opposite of communism -- a government entirely based on free market structures.
so yes. that is bad.
and the moral of the story is -- lets not stray too far from a happy compromise.
I shall repeat Simon's well-posed question:
"north and south korea. where would you rather live?"
Yes, and my point was that it can only be idealogical, and never work out in reality. That is why in my first comment I asked you to give examples of successful communist regimes...whereby success is measured in comparison to where the North American society stands in terms of living conditions, health and general public contentment with the system. .....in response, you named China and the former Soviet Union. A response which I was surprised with. I am chinese. I know about how many feel about their government.
I'm sorry, but how much do YOU know about North Korea, and why would you assume i know any less? Next, you're going to start telling me that everyone is happy and peaceful there, and that they don't spend billions on military arms instead of feeding their starving people.
i'm gonna slowly back away from this one now.....but i'll just lob this in....
many of my great-grandparents and aunts/uncles were happy until communists took power in china. then they were dead.
to me? not so great a success!
i'll take living in a perhaps haphazard and rural third world society that is relatively democractic over an industrialized super power with oppressive powers any day.
Post a Comment
<< Home