Are corporations evil?

You must not have been paying much attention then. Besides the deaths caused by the Ford Pinto, you've got German manufacturers using Jewish slave labor in WWII, Swiss banks helping Nazis hide stolen wealth, Dole using debt-peonage in the Carribean, American oil companies taking a monopoly on Mexican oil reserves (before the Revolution), the East Indian Company forcing the trade of opium in China, and I haven't even googled anything yet.

 

Okay, point taken. But would a corporation be able to do these things without the support of government? For example, take the Jewish slave labor. Without the Nazi government taking away the rights of Jews, it wouldn't have happened. And those things still pale in comparison to the mass murders committed by Communist and Fascist governments in the 20th century.

 

Actually what made it all possible was widespread anti-semitism. When Henry Ford wrote a book about how bad the jewish people were etc. and gave one away free with each of his cars sold, it is only an example of how widespread the bigotry was. It started slow, based on old prejudices, and more and more people bought into it. So when Hitler started in on the jews you had people who either believed his hype, or had enough distrust and apathy on their own to allow the tragedies to happen.

Hitler started doing that, and nobody did a thing to help. It was only when territory got involved and it became clear that Hitler was trying to dominate Europe that the allies started opposing him.

 

If a company provides a good or service that the public wants, how is that wrong?

If a company did not provide something desirable (ie. sellable), they would not be able to stay in business.

Of course, there are plenty of evil people out there who work for coporations, but it would be simplistic to brand the whole system as evil.

 

When corporations exceed the wealth and power of small countries, it's natural to doubt their sincerity. Corporations act like living entities with its sole purpose is to make money for itself and its shareholders. Underlying that is the amount of power the Board Members and its executive office. They are like diplomats of a foreign borderless country that can wreck another country's economy by their decisions.

This wave of consolodation and merging is limiting the influence of competition and giving those board members power and influence of those corporations. Plus, the number of these board members are growing less and less. Consider the fact that media moguls can become CEO of tech companies or IT companies or any other industry for that matter. The only thing that is asked of them is to make money. They don't need intimate knowledge of the industry to do that. Eventually, an oligarchy will be established. That is the underlying principle of corporate facism.

Ideals like corporate altruism only work with vigorous competition. We've seen the lack of innovation in oligarchies coming from the music and network television industry. The oil companies, with their horizontal integration, are slow to meet consumer demands because they profit from any delay or mishap. Walmart is an industry darling, yet Costco beats its wholesale division, Sams Club, in profitability/sq. ft. and is shunned by Wall Street because Costco pays their associates higher wages and gives them a higher benefits.

The enormous size and scope corporations are becoming will allow abuses to happen, if not already. Corporations follow non-altruistic practices because it shareholders and consumers reward them through approval or apathy.

 

I agree. Actually, I think its silly to blame either government or corporations, when its really people's actions that are to blame.

 

Well, if you're Christian (and I know meowgi isn't)...

Mark 10:24 - 25
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

-- droxford

 

1. An eye of an needle then is not the same as it is now. It used to be a much bigger eye. The camel could do it.

2. Rich is relative.

3. Why? Always ask why.

4. Attachment to desire for impermanent phenomena leads to suffering.

 

Or maybe camels were a lot smaller then.

Unless your relatives are real tightwads.

Try Bud Dry.

The hard part is getting over permanent attachment to the impermament.

 

I defy you to find one person who takes an interest in politics and doesn't interest himself in morality in the broadest terms. Those who take issue with legislating morality take issue with the superficial definition -- the one that revolves around issues of sex and religion. Progressives (or liberals, to use the dirty word) have been remarkably consistent in promoting and defending the Christian value of valuing help for the less fortunate over valuing the dollar. Clinton was a rare exception with his draconian welfare reform, but he wasn't a progressive anyway. Max, you seem to come to this thread more as a Republican than a Christian. It seems to me that a pure Christian would be with the R's on bedroom issues (from gays to abortion to premarital sex to contraception) but would be with the D's on economic issues and social welfare. In fact, the entire social welfare platform of the D's is straight out of the New Testament.

It is a mistake to debate whether the evil done by big business in a capitalist country is the fault of corporations or individuals. If the debate is framed like that, blame can be shifted from one to the other and the root of the problem can be easily ignored. Jesus defied moneychangers for valuing money over human welfare. It seems to me that any true follower of Christ would be as passionate about that, particularly while living in a capitalist society, as he would be about abortion or any other sexual issue. But maybe poverty, homelessness and general inequality just isn't "sexy" enough to merit like consideration.

I am a moral relativist (in the dismissive parlance). I also deplore hypocrisy and worship brotherhood at the expense of profit. Is capitalism evil? Jesus seemed to think so, in cases where it threatened the well being of the general society. My moral relativism leads me to believe capitalism is not evil on its own, but it is when it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. To the extent that I understand his teachings, Jesus and I are alike that way. He's not my personal savior so maybe I'm bound for hell, but it pleases me that he shared my progressive leanings when it came to valuing helping less fortunate people over getting rich.

 

Excellently written. You did well young Skywalker.

I know there is an afterlife. I expect you to be there. You'll see the religious way sometime.

I don't understand where you feel people shouldn't earn a dollar to get a dollar. Hell, I'm in MidTown Houston. If a guy asks me for a dollar, I'm bound to give him one. Why? Because he had the gall to ask me for one.

You truly want these people to sit at home and expect the dollar???? And in the meantime, I'm earning my living???

Life isn't fair. I've learned that long ago. It won't ever be that way, either.

 

I wasn't writing about fairness, Fatty. Life isn't fair -- I get that. Since the thread was about "evil," I was writing about relative religious values. I honestly believe that progressives and conservatives are both driven, in terms of their initial instinct, by religious values above all else. It's a judgment call as to which group is closer to Christ (for example). I personally think that, when it comes to religious values, Democrats are closer, but again, that's a judgment call. As for fairness or whatever other measuring stick, that's for another thread. This one's about evil, so I'm speaking here in terms of morality and ethics and, by extension, religion. It's easy to dismiss needy people as being lazy, but that's for another thread. This thread is about the relative value any given person (or group of people) places on addressing neediness versus pursuing profit.

 

And incidentally Fatty, if you think I don't understand the basic precepts of Western religion, you're not paying attention. I'm agnostic and I don't believe at all in an afterlife, but I am a great admirer of Christ and, whether coincidentally or consciously, I live my life according to his teachings every single day. Not all Christians can say that. My belief or non-belief in an afterlife has no bearing whatever on whether or not I "see the religious way." I see all sorts of versions of the "religious way." I see the one that Christ laid out, I see the one that Christians in churches value, and I see the ones that other religions value. The letters of those laws are not only oppressive to me -- I believe they miss and even harm the spirit of those laws as laid down by their originators. The Catholic Church, for example, spends more energy judging than teaching not to judge, in my estimation, and the religious right does the same. I'm sticking with JC, even if I don't say the magic words. And I'm not doing it to get to Heaven. I don't believe in Heaven. I'm doing it because I think he was right. And I'd have done it whether or not he'd so well articulated his recommendations about living together on this complicated planet. So keep praying for me to "get it" if you want. Or don't. I'm satisfied I get it well enough as it is.

 

Yeah, well.... I got this kick ass backstage pass into Heaven, so I'm cool.

And Heaven does exist. I've seen too much proof of that. Either way, if I'm wrong when we die, I totally owe you a drink!

 

I haven't seen anyone mention this. (Pardon if I missed it).

The Corporation is a very interesting documentary from 2004. I don't think it enjoyed wide distribution but it should be rentable. The producers clearly have an opinion, but the film is full of interesting facts.

The most striking bit from that film for me is that America's treatment of coporations is somewhat odd in that they were granted the standing of individual citizens at some point in the early 20th century. This gave them protections that companies would not normally have elsewhere.

Given that they function legally as individual entities, the film then has an exercise of profiling their personalities. With only primary aim (profit) and no sensible interest in the well-being of other entities, the canonical corporation fits the profile of a psychopath perfectly.

I'm not doing the film justice -- would be best to see it for yerselves. There are very hopeful examples and messages, for what it's worth.

PS -- wow, that's my 5,000th post. How completely lame but somehow typical and appropriate.

 

Actually I think corporations have a lot of interest in the wellbeing of the following groups- their customers, their employees, other companies they do business with, the government, and the courts.

If places like the Middle East and Africa had more corporations, I think they'd be better off.

 

Yet corporations still behave unethically.

Corporations are for making profits and while they legally have personhood they don't have have self-awareness, a conscience or what could be considered a soul. Its up to those who run them to do that.

There are plenty of corporations in Africa and the Middle East already and I don't see how they make things any better. Many would argue they make things worse but I'll leave that to someone else.

 

Holy excellent insights Batman!

I just wanted to comment on this part.

I totally agree with this and think that both parties are overdue for a major realignment on issues and supporters.

If Christian Conservatives succeed in taking over the Republican party I think you will find socially moderate fiscal conservatives as welcome there as Pro-lifers in the Democratic party.

 

That is outstanding. Poor Batman.