Corporations: The Good News
Summary
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "Corporations are like a chainsaw. They're a powerful tool, but if you don't control them, they'll rip your leg off." Most of the articles on this site spend their time ripping corporations--but only because they've gotten out of control. This article redresses the balance somewhat, and tells what's good about corporations.
1200 words
Citizens' Advisory Register [future] T-Shirts & Mugs [future] Donations [in progress] Send comments and suggestions |
by Eric Armstrong
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "Corporations are like a chainsaw. They're a powerful tool, but if you don't control them, they'll rip your leg off." Most of the articles on this site spend their time ripping corporations--but only because they've gotten out of control. This article redresses the balance somewhat, and tells what's good about corporations.
There's nothing particularly wrong about feeling good about your country--except when you start thinking that other countries are bad, and you go to war because of it.
The nice thing about international trade is that trading partners don't like to go to war with one another. Weapons manufacturers do well, of course. But most every one else loses. So corporations tend to be against war which, on the whole, has been a good thing for humanity.
For most of the past 30 years, I've been a big fan of global international corporations, for just that reason. They do lessen significantly the likelihood of war. I've only changed my mind because, in my view, the world is now hovering on the brink of a global economic feudalism that will be managed by giant, multi-national corporations. The process may take 30 or 40 years, but pending resource scarcities, continually lowering standards of living, and increasing concentrations of wealth suggest that the process may well be inevitable, unless we take concerted action, right now.
An even more pernicious force than nationalism is religious orthodoxy. (The precise term is actually, catholicism, which means, "My way is the only right way". But I hesitate to use it, for fear of being perceived as singling one group, even if they were responsible for the origin of the term.)
The problem with religious fanatics is that they have no humility whatsoever. They absolutely know they are right. If you disagree, you are wrong. It's as simple as that. If that's as far as it went, it wouldn't be too bad. But real fanatics know that punishing you or preventing you from your sins is good for you, so they don't hesitate for a second to do whatever they need to do to purify your soul. Hence the Crusades, the Inquisition, and various forms of ethnic cleansing.
As long as "the rule of law" is the governing principle in the land, religious fervor is held in check. But when religous zealots gain access to the power of government, watch out. Religious persecution in various forms are sure to result.
America's founding fathers were wise enough to foresee this danger and enshrine the principle of "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution. Unfortunately, there was no way for them to see the rise of an industrial civilization and global multinational corporations that would effectively wrest control of the nation's democracy from it's people so, sadly, they neglected to establish the principle of "Separation of Corporations and State".
One good effect corporations have had, however, has been to curtail religious fanaticism. To a corporation, one person's money is as good as another, and your religious beliefs are irrelevant. So they tend to avoid irrational discrimination.
Note:
Discrimination is a good thing. Irrational discrimination, on the other hand, is just idiotic. For example, it's irrational to discriminate based on the color of a person's skin. Their speech patterns, on the other hand, tend to indicate a person's background and suggest the kind of values they hold. So discrimination based on speech patterns could well be rational--for example, if you were looking to hire a lawyer. On the other hand, refusing to sell food to someone based on their speech patterns would generally be idiotic and irrational--while refusing to sell guns based on those patterns might well be wise.
Too, if you happen to engage in practices that aren't hurting others, businesses will find a way to sell you the things you need for that practice, whatever it may happen to be. So businesses have a secularizing effect, in that they support and even advertise practices that some religious groups may find abhorent.
Of course, there is a balance to walk here. That's where government plays a role. "Religious" practices that hurt others, animals, or the environment can't be condoned, regardless of how sincere their practioners believe themselves to be.
And in some cases religion embodies wisdom that a civilization has accumulated for centuries, so it may be against practices that do, in fact, have harmful social consequences. Government has to be alert to that possibility, at least. Rather than blindly legalizing everything in sight, it should cautiously lift the restraints little by little, and guage the effects on society as a whole.
In this complex interaction of forces, the right balance can be found, with some religious groups proposing restrictions, while other groups and more secular individuals propose freedoms. Corporations, meanwhile, will tend to favor whichever philosophy makes them money, and government can play referee.
Restricting the religious and nationalistic forces that lead to war are undoutedly corporations' greatest achievement. A potentially close second is the restriction of religous forces that would, otherwise, arbitrarily limit freedoms. After those two failry intangible benefits for society come a host of tangible benefits in the form of improved products and packaging.
The advances in food packaging and preparation, just in my lifetime, has been staggering. I once started writing a list of things that did not exist when I was growing up. I stopped when I got to 4 pages. With respect to food, that list included the following items:
Corporations are capable of doing a lot of good, as long as their efforts are harnassed in the best interests of society--and society's only viable means of control is government. The problems start when corporations interfere in the political processes that would otherwise serve to restrict their behavior. In America, they currently dominate those processes, and their short-sighted behavior is producing the very real possiblity of virtual economic slavery around the globe within the next 50 years. If that threat can be neutralized, however, corporations have the potential to help mankind turn the planet into the archetypal Garden of Eden that is our dream.
About Eric Armstrong
Eric Armstrong is computer systems designer, writer, and philosopher. He is currently working on a book that uses the principles of General Systems Theory to explain how America's epidemic of obesity and disease stems from profitable, but unhealthy, ingredients in the food supply; how the corporate financial system (and our own retirement plans) are complicit in the problem; how the American political system allows it to happen; and how our problems with the environment, a dwindling standard of living, and even our problems with the global economy all stem from the same constellation of systemic interactions. At www.treelight.com/health, he focuses on nutrition and fitness. At www.citizensAdvisory.org, his forming non-profit is working to get the money out of politics. At www.artima.com/weblogs, he writes about software, web technology, and development tools.
About Citizens' Advisory
Corporate money has hijacked the ballot box. The Citizens' Advisory aims to take it back. Our goal is to put people in charge of the political process. The voting-advice system recommended by the Citizens Advisory lets people choose advisors they trust. Done right, that system will enable multi-party coalitions in cyberspace. The system appeals to voters because it's convenient. It appeals to social activists and their organizations because it levels the political playing the field and empowers them with a stronger political voice.
Copyright © 2005 byCitizens'
Advisory.
All rights reserved.