What happened to notion of the corporation as responsible citizen?

[AP]

About a month ago I was listening to a story on the radio about a company in Wisconsin which had been sold to a multinational. Employees were interviewed about the changes in the company. One employee talked about losing the company orchestra. Employees played in it, and they would rehearse during lunch in a big atrium in which other employees would take their lunches while listening to rehearsals -- one employee said that was the biggest thing that she missed since ownership changed.

This reminded me of reading something once about how in the '30s American corporations had to confront the fact that for the first 30 or so years of industrialization, corporations were highly irresponsible citizens of society. They brutalized and exploited their employees. They had no interest in making sure there was a wealthy middle class to buy their goods or services. In the 20's and 30's the hostility to their practices became so intense, they had to change 180 degrees.

So they took the idea that they should be contributing to the community seriously, and they engaged in projects to improve the the social lives of employees. Company orchestras were born -- and that was only one small part of it.

It's amazing how we're coming around to pre-30s reform America. We're back to corproations existing purely for profits. They don't care what their employees do in their free time. They don't care if their employees have free time. They don't even care about shareholders. They only care about channeling corporate wealth into the hands of insiders.

What happened?

[leftofthedial]

1. neoconservatism

and its absurd economic ideas

[murielm99]

5. It just proves to me that...

there is nothing "neo" or new, about them. It is a return to the old robber baron days.

And they are not conservative, either. Conservatives revere the Constitution, and think it should be interpreted literally. No true conservative would ever suggest such a thing as an amendment, like the amendment to ban gay marriage. True conservatives also believe in states' rights. This lot thinks the executive branch should have all the power, and to hell with the states.

I wish the governor of Illinois, and all the other governors who want to buy drugs from Canada would form a coalition, yell states' rights, and defy the feds by buying from Canada anyway.

Neoconservatives? Fascists, is more like it.

[camero]

12. neo- also means "revived".

So its not actually intellectually dishonest to say that they are pre-1930's conservative. It's a dead giveaway for their agenda.

[cliss]

2. This is a long-standing argument.

Some theorists say corporations should be allowed to carry on their business unhindered through regulation. Other people say we need to regulate and watch what the corporation does.

It's an argument that swings back and forth, depending on the political climate and how much damage corporations have done collectively. If corporations are allowed to operate unhindered, then they can be expected to do the one thing they were created for: to survive and hopefully prosper.

Legally, a corporation is actually seen as a "person", an entity that can exist on its own, long after its creators have died.

The Bush Administration walked into the White House with the understanding that corporations should be left to their own devices as much as possible, at the expense of individuals.

Why would this be a problem? Why wouldn't we applaud and encourage such an ingenious invention: a creature that can outlive its masters.

Because if a corporation is considered to be a "person", then I'm outnumbered. How can I, or 50 of my friends compete with the might of this creation? That's the fundamental problem, and that's why we need regulation. Enron should be proof enough of this.

[mouse7]

4. Corporations have far more civil rights than we do

There's not one person on the planet than can pick the place they want to live, go there, pay taxes in another country, get the retirement benefits in another, health care in another, and vote in still another.

Corporations can do all those types of things, and if prevented from doing so, file suit with the WTO saying a country is putting up an illegal barrier to trade.

Corporations are allowed to pick and choose where they do whatever business they want to do and pay whatever taxes they want in whatever country they want.

Let someone try to file a lawsuit saying immigration laws are a barrier to trade. They will get laughed out of court.

[maggrwaggr]

16. but it's at the expense of capitalism itself.

THIS IS WHAT FUCKING PISSES ME OFF!

These idiot neo-con corporate fascists have convinced people that the lack of regulation will HELP capitalism.

The exact opposite is true!

Capitalism only produces the best goods and services when there is as much COMPETITION as possible!

Without regulation, what happens is LESS competition, not more competition. The big boys swallow up the little boys, the big boys engage in unethical conduct and NONcompetetive behavior to drive the weaker companies out of business.

And you end up with WalMart. Microsoft. NewsCorp.

Somehow EVERYBODY has swallowed this bullshit about "lack of regulation" being good for "capitalism."

It's just another lie propagated by the right wing, and the fact that anybody here would even repeat it means that they have WON the propaganda war.

Sorry for the shouting, but I am just appalled at this prevailing attitude in our soceity.

Who's got the moniker that in rough times good men must state the obvious? This is one of those times.

It's Econ 101.

[aquart]

3. It was a lie. Corporations are not citizens.

They are not democracies nor are they loyal to democracy. And no multinational cartel has any interest in the values, people, or constitution of the United States of America.

The hostility to their practices that you mention was called regulation. Labor laws. Child labor laws. Food and drug safety laws. OSHA. Banking regulations. Securities regulations. No agency of the United States came about without egregious corporate behavior.

By relaxing those regulations, instituted only after the shedding of more than sufficient American blood, Bush has dishonored our industrial dead, and let loose the heartless, soulless, conscienceless greed that was caught looting and maiming us before.

Republicans are people so blinded by the silly, glittery word "profit," they never notice the dark and bloody word, "cost."

[rman]

6. once the civil rights of corporations have been taken away from them

it'll be a lot easier to have 'm act resposibly.

[Aries]

9. Some activist justices made a mistake in 1886

From: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

"In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.

Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history."

[Nlighten1]

7. Corporations are amoral...

they are not people and don't care about people in most cases.

[maggrwaggr]

17. It is their job to do as much as they can get away with

and yes, they are "amoral" by definition. Morals play no part in business. If they did, Philip Morris stock would be about fifty cents. Nobody would buy it out of shame.

They do whatever the law lets them do. That's what they're supposed to fucking do. That's why we need laws to tell them what they can and cannot do.

Gosh, these laws are called "regulations". "regulations" is a bad word now (thanks Reagan, Rush, Newt).

But aren't we a nation of "laws?"

Business is just a game. Games have rules. Somebody has to enforce them. Hell, even boxing matches have referees.

[whatelseisnew]

8. Corpos did not respond to Public Hostility but to Regulation

Likewise with the Millionaires of that era who created all of those

foundations not out of altruism but in response to regulation and changes in the tax code

[AP]

10. Regulation didnt' force that Wisconsin company to start an orchestra

Although I agree with you in principle -- yes, in most cases, no corporation will do what they have to do unless there's a law telling them to behave properly.

However, it's an historical fact that corporations beginning in the 30s and ending in the 80s felt that it was important to be good corporate citizens, and took postitive steps to contribute to the quality of life within their organizations and their communities. You can legislate many of things corporations did.

We have totally lost that.

[Touchdown]

11. I work for a telecom firm...starts with an A and has an &

;-) We have a program called A*&*;-) Cares Day, where we get paid to group together for a day and help out in our local communities. We get one a year. It's a good program. This year, 30 of us painted, and fixed up a playground in Denver City Park that was falling into disrepair. Last year I helped out a meals on wheels service for folks living with AIDS.

BUT!....This year was also the one where the company provided no landscaping budget, or budgets for indoor plants. Our building wasn't to get any gardens this year. ...stay with me...So, what do a bunch of goody-goodies (union members of all things!) do? They canvassed the building looking for volunteers to plant our own flowers (we had to buy them) , get this...and they can use their Cares Day allowance for it!

Now, this was a day created for us employees to help out our communities, not to plant flowers for a multi-billion dollar corporation too cheap to buy IT'S OWN BUILDING flowers! This is beyond belief!

[kodi]

13. while companies exist soley for profit, that is supposed to help society

best thing i ever read on this is posted below, pass it on, its pretty good stuff:

"The normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business all the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity. However, business acts on the prevailing business philosophy, which claims that corporate self-interest eventually produces the general interest. This comfortable belief rests on misinterpretation of the theory of market rationality proposed by Adam Smith.

"He would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable. He saw the necessity for public intervention to create or sustain the public interest, and took for granted the existence of a government responsible to the community as a whole, providing the structure within which the economy functions.

"Classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. Part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. The obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government.

"Business looks after the interests of businessmen and corporation stockholders. Stark and selfish self-interest obviously is not what motivates most American businessmen and -women, but it is the doctrine of the contemporary corporation and of the modern American business school."

"It does not automatically serve the general interest, as any 18th century rationalist would acknowledge - or any 21st century realist."

William Pfaff

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-01.htm

[FDRrocks]

14. They are not citizens

Corporations, by nature, are greedy. They are not human and do not deserve equal rights with other human beings.

To say that corporations can even be any type of citizen, to me, indicates that you think they deserve the equal rights they were given in the late 1800's by a shitty court decision.

[bleedingheart]

15. people have forgotten history and are condemned to repeat it

the Gilded Age is upon us.....

it is so hard for me to watch...I was raised by a father and mother raised in 1919 and 1932 respectively...and they raised me to understand how I should appreciate what I have ...but I watch as so many just forget those lessons so hard fought and learned...