|
I think a lot of people and institutions mistake the anti-corporate rhetoric of someone like John Edwards, or myself, as detailing a stance completely opposed to the very notion of a corporation, or somehow desiring the utter destruction of the corporation as a legal entity.
From what I've read of what Edwards has to say about it, and from my own point of view, this couldn't be farther from the truth. My opposition to corporate power in this country stems not from a dislike of corporations, but in the way our system of economics and government have grown to deal with the influence of corporations, which, in turn, I believe stems from the notion of corporate "personhood" and the exercise of a person's right to free speech translated into cold, hard cash.
For starters. This misapprehension has corrupted our political process to the point that the corporations, Big Business, has far more influence over our system of government than it should. It is their contributions that often determine who can and cannot run for office, or, even assuming that someone could run for office without their support, how far they might get.
And, given all the resources Big Business invests in seeing the "right" people make it into office, it is ludicrous to assume that it does not see equitable returns on its investments. Business does not continue investing in any venture without gaining something in return. Thus, it seems fairly obvious that these campaign contributions generally have the desired result, and influence the decisions made by those these investments have assisted into office.
But it's more than that, of course. It's the fact that the only moral obligation a corporation has, under accepted law, is to ensuring the bottom line on behalf of its stockholders. Thus, it is not only a normal business practice, but a moral imperative for corporations to do things that may negatively impact a community or even the country as a whole. If it's good for the bottom line, downsizing, outsourcing, and other questionable tactics to lower the company's overhead are "positive" things from its point of view, regardless of their long-term impact.
Corporations are licensed to operate by the government and thus, in my opinion, should have a higher moral imperative to the ultimate issuers of that license, namely We, the People, than simply to earn a bit more money for those fortunate enough to own stock in any given corporation.
It becomes even more of an issue when one considers how many corporate officers earn huge dividends and so-called "golden parachutes," often at the expense of rank and file employees, the communities in which these employees reside and/or work, and the long-term economic strength of the country.
It may have been good for the stockholders, on paper, for companies to downsize their local work force and outsource many manufacturing positions overseas, or even contract with foreign corporations to perform certain tasks, but, as we can all see, it hasn't been good for America. Much of our manufacturing base has been sent elsewhere, leaving those willing to spend a little more to buy American no real option to do so. There's simply nothing to buy.
So these actions hurt American workers, bleed American jobs, and limit the economic diversity of our pools of both labor and capital. In short, it's stealing from the American economic engine to put a little more money in the pockets of a select few investors. And it's not only accepted, it's a legally mandated moral imperative.
Many companies manage to exist as responsible corporate citizens, within the limitations allowed within the system. They give back to their communities, they foster a diverse work force, and attempt to behave responsibly in the ways that matter most. But those that do this are put at a disadvantage by those that do not, for those that don't actually gain benefits from hedging their bets. They play fast and loose with their employees, seek tax exemptions they neither need nor deserve, and do business with questionable organizations overseas, all in the name of inflating their bottom line.
They cut pensions, lay-off or fire their best-paid workers, the ones whose loyalty to the company should have gained them similar loyalty in return, and cut benefits any time it looks like their profits might falter.
It is my position that the first moral imperative of any company should be to contribute as much as feasible to bolstering the American economic engine. Not only by providing goods and/or services that are needed by the community, but by providing a work environment where productivity and morale are kept high by consistent reinvestment in the well-being of its employees. A happy worker is a harder worker. A well paid, secure worker with adequate health benefits is a worker not afraid to spend money and put more money into the overall economy.
A low-paid, insecure worker is not as productive, is more likely to be ill, and is far less likely to help drive the economic machine as a normal course of business.
The problem isn't the corporations itself. It's the atmosphere of exploitation we've allowed certain companies to thrive within. They're not only exploiting their workers, but other companies, and the American taxpayers as well by taking far more from the system than they're willing to put into it.
These are the kinds of organizations that must be brought to heel to see a revived American economy. They must be reminded that they exist on OUR sufferance, and owe us more than their existence and their ability to generate dividends for their stockholders. They must have a higher purpose than simply making money.
There are those who would disagree with me, of that there is no doubt. There are conservatives, who still believe in the myth of the free market. There are socialists, who might think that the corporation itself may be the epitome of everything that's wrong with our capitalistic society, that perhaps large corporations should not be allowed to exist at all, or should be instead turned over to the ultimate ownership of either their employees, or the government.
But the fact remains that as things stand now, many corporations endanger us in more ways that we can count. They endanger us financially as individuals, by expecting far more loyalty than they themselves are willing to give. They endanger us environmentally, by producing and expelling toxins, or by creating goods that are themselves potentially dangerous. And they endanger us economically, by stripping America of its economic diversity in order to enrich a relatively few people who cannot, simply by their small numbers, invest enough money to generate economic movement on a large scale.
And that, in the end, is the bottom line.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
