The Corporation

Foreword:

There have become very few great &true achievements of Civilization from 0-2000AD. These achievements include: Feudalism, Colonialism, Industrialism, Capitalism, and Communism. The latest achievement includes International Corporate Entities (ICEs), otherwise known as Corporatism. This latest ideology represents the latest extension of Mankind with his absolute need to control any and everything, toward the ideal of his own gain, consumption, and profit. Corporatism supercedes (follows from) both Capitalistic and Communistic economic enterprises, all with the intent to strengthen and empower an assumed centralized federal government or fascist state.

Corporatism merely is surviving its fallen predecessors:
Communism has fallen in the 20th Century, bankrupting the former Soviet Union.
Capitalism has fallen in the 21st Century, bankrupting the current Amerikan Empire.

International Corporatism stands-ready, as an economic enterprise, to succeed the previous systems in every way. Corporatism does this as a legal-entity and abstracted ‘Personhood’. Corporations represent groups of men, with a ‘CEO’ as President of operations. The fundamental life-force of a Corporation is its profit-motive. Corporations are parasitical entities as all (current) corporate entities absolutely rely-upon: 1. institutionalized systems of (foreign or domestic) Law, 2. a “home” government that protects the personified “Human Rights” of corporate power, and 3. trade and flow of capital assets. Corporations cannot exist without capital assets, currency, foreign markets, stocks, bonds, government protection, and Law… As such, corporations absolutely are extensions of these conceptions, and withhold that abstract personification of “Personhood”.

The Corporation:

This thread is for discussing the numerous problems, benefits, risks, and solutions which ICEs present to the 21st Century, from the First World to the Fifth World. Corporations are economical projects designed to monopolize & concentrate unbelievable sums of wealth, value, and physical resources (even in the form of patenting YOUR living DNA along with genetic-structures of every categorized specie alive) to the “upper-echelons” of Human Society. Corporations necessary are not designed to “help” or even “hinder” other people, at least, not by the definition of “Personhood”. One may think of corporations as “invisible men”, or God, who goes around taking everything without necessity for permission, at will, and without repercussions. Left unchecked, ICEs can, will, and already do consolidate raw resources and Power to international elites as an Oligarchy. CEOs, not presidents, will own the world of the 21st and perhaps 22nd Century… to far, far beyond.

Without the ability to conduct war against ICEs, or even the ability to legally bind a corporation (no imprisonment), such an abstract entity (of judicial law) can become torted through the unlimited power of cash-flow alone. How much money is too much? How much international influence is too much? To corporations, there is no limit, and no amount of resources too large to become consolidated away-from, and imposed-against, masses of millions or billions of people.

How much is a belief, your belief worth? Rest-assured, if you can dream of a number, then a Corporation CAN AFFORD TO BUY IT.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15
Part 16
Part 17
Part 18
Part 19
Part 20
Part 21
Part 22
Part 23

Side-note:

Most of the ideologies inherent within Corporatism, not unlike Capitalism, not unlike Communism, are inventions of Jewish Thinkers and Philosophers. I will become very clear in my point: economic systems are used toward the sole, singular purpose of maintaining an Elite class of Aristocracy, a group of predesignated “Leaders”. These leaders are not who you probably have become acquainted with (elected politicians of a representative democracy). These leaders are Thinkers, by nature. And their methods of control/culling entirely are conducive to an optimal means of “Human Progress”.

What does it mean for humanity/civilization to “progress”, anyway? Nevermind that for now…

Corporatism is an extension of socio-political & psychological work completed by Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays.

You may watch the documentary beforehand or as a follow-up: The Century of Self.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

No. The fundamental objective of a corporation is increasing its longterm networth. Profit doesn’t drive a corporation, it is like food for a living organism: something that is necessary for survival but not the objective of existence. Corporations are rarely driven to maximise profits. If profits are growing, the corporation grows by hiring more employees, buying more services from other corporations etc.

That is a good point. Corporations are like persons who can only be imposed a monetary fine upon for transgressions, but never incarcerated or killed.

Would you rather have unhappy and belligerent people?

No, a corporation must first incur profit before considering long-term net-worth.

Even the long-term net-worth is motivated by profit margins. Corporations appeal to stock holders in the end.

Their justification for existence is the revenue produced by them toward their “corporate, stock owners”.

It depends.

If people are docile and “happy” then they often turn out like the Nazis… complacent and passive to Fascist dictatorship. Then any dictator (or Corporation in this sense) can step-in and impose rules against the populace or government. Already, today, some corporations are more influential than the United States government.

If people do not realize the danger of this then those who remain ignorant are in for a world of hurt. Already, today, the Military-Industrial Complex is driven by corporate arms manufacturers for profit, alone. Defined by the profit motive instead of the will to defend a specific group of people, government, or society, wars become instigated for profit, not moral conduct. You essentially see the rise of worldwide, international, mercenary units as private corporations employ.

This is an advanced form of Colonialism.

People who respond to this thread really and thoroughly should watch “The Corporation” documentary posted.

It has some amazing, social insights that can be quoted off-hand. I will analyze some of those points and quote them in this thread, when I have more time.

That is like saying since one needs to eat before one can consider other things of one’s welfare, one’s welfare is motivated to maximise how much one eats. Profits are only part of the longterm networth, just as wholesome food is only part an indivdual’s welfare.

Sure and that is where the plot thickens :slight_smile:

If stocks were evaluated based exclusively on past and current profit margins, corporations would have no choice but to concentrate exclusively on maximising profits. But corporations are evaluted for their future profitability and past performance is but a small input into the future profitability of the company.

I am not sure why they need to justify their existence to anybody. They exist and every stockholder is so by choice. But in any case, stockholders are happy as long as they make money whether by selling the stocks for a profit or as revenue in the form of dividends. The market is saturated with investors who depend on the former rather than the latter. If a corporation has reached a stage where it cannot see its revenues going up any further (a very significant indicator of future profitability), it may be forced to serve the shareholder interests by increasing profit margins and paying dividends. However it is very unlikely that any corporation survives at that stage. The more common thing is grow (merging with or being acquired by a growing corporation is equivalent to growth) or perish (restructuring is a form of perishing).

OK. I now see that by “happy” you meant complacent/indifferent.

Once the people are docile and complacent where is the question of going against their will? I believe the Nazis wer quite popular during their rule. So was George W Bush.

Influential with whom? Other countries? American public? Is that supposed to be bad?

You mean it is somehow bad that those who egg their governments on when they are killing others should themselves get hurt?

Not so. It is the traditional form of colonialism. It was corporations backed by mercenaries that colonised Asia and Africa. It was later that the nation-states had taken over the colonies in order to distribute the loot more evenly amongst their populations. What you are saying is that it is simply reverting to the old ways. Are you complaining because the common populations in the imperialistic countries don’t get a share of the loot anymore as they did until recently and it is reserved just for the shareholders of the corporations?

There is nothing in the structure of a corporation that makes them bandits. However if the corporation is born in a place where banditry is considered “good”, bandits will flourish in the corporate environment and eventually take control of the corporations and country as well.

There is a critical link between net-worth and profits. Net-worth is assessed by calculating the discounted future stream of net profits, together with the value of current assets. A one-off profit will increase assets and, with them, net worth. But only by the value of the profit. Long-term, sustained stream of profits can dramatically impact net-worth.

There is no contradiction between the two goals of maximising long-term net-worth and profit. Clearly, corporations don’t need to have current profits to be worth a lot. They must, however, have credible prospects of future profits.

Here and elsewhere, people confuse the evils of fascistic crony-capitalism in which corporations (but also labour unions) use governments to further their ends, with the truly free markets in which corporations are a power for good, not evil.

You’re right, but…

The profit-motive is fundamental in the sense of long-term net-worth. It needs to go up, not down. This is the paramount “problem” of corporations. They only are “Good” if they are growing, consuming, and monopolizing a market. Why is this a problem? Because it promotes a very specific practice: It doesn’t matter to what ends the corporation acquires profit, just as long as it does!

This creates a moral dilemma: At what point, does it become justified within the profit-motive, that Human Slavery becomes reconsidered, or murder, or genocide?? For the corporate identity (ICE), this moral ambiguity becomes analyzed through the profit-motive, again. Slavery and murder are non-issues, just how much it costs in legal funds, to go to court over inducing slavery & murder, as a cost-benefit analysis.

The corporation, itself, has no moral agency. That is the primary danger.

The one and only thing that stops corporations from enslaving and killing people is court costs and fees. If one corporation can afford to pay such fees, then you can bet your ass that it will start enslaving and killing people, just as Arms Manufacturing corporations already do this (Haliburton in Iraq, for example).

As I just pointed-out, though, Corporations have no moral agency!

So Corporations cannot do good or evil, but inflict them by consequence. Corporations hurt some people (anybody) and help other people (stock holders).

If a stock-holder becomes hurt by his/her own corporation, then this becomes an internal issue of the corporation. That is another matter.

Another thing you must know about profit-motive and long-term net-worth, is, that Capital Assets are the commonality. Corporations are extensions of capitalism (and colonialism as I mentioned). Corporations also do incorporate some limited aspects of communism (in the form of stock-holders). So Corporations truly are the end-result of capitalism, communism, and colonialism. They are all-in-one.

Without capital assets, a corporation (or society) cannot function. All profits are derived from exchanges of capital assets, toward those who use (or consume) a “product” compared to those who create/sell/trade those products. If something is not a capital asset then no “profit” can become made off of it.

People are capital assets (according to capitalism)… in the form of liabilities.

For example, some (smart, hard-working) employees create wealth. Some (stupid, lazy) employees create waste.

Corporations inherently are dehumanizing institutions. Not only do they not have moral agency, but are antithetical toward human agency in general.

That is my argument.

It is no different from an individual who considers increasing his wealth at all costs. A corporation doesn’t have to be “good” in the same way as an individual doesn’t have to keep increasing his wealth at all costs.

It is the same “dilemma” individuals may face, not any different.

A corporation is like any other association of individuals for a purpose. None has any moral agency save what the individuals involved decide to give it. There isn’t really any “danger” in it.

That is like saying the one and only thing that stops a group of individuals from enslaving and killing others is the possible costs associated with doing such things in the form of reprisals from an overriding force.

Sure some groups have behaved and continue to behave that way and corporations dominated by such people do the same.

Coprorations are not human. So they can’t care about human agency one way or the other. But they do not exist without human beings and their attitude to human agency is the attitude of those in control of the corporation.

I think it may be instructive to contrast corporations with governments. Set aside rhetoric for a moment, and consider motivation and constraints.

Corporations are expressly trying to maximise their net worth. That often translates into profit-making, but has a long-term element. Share prices can go up without any profits if the long-term prospect of the corporation appear promising. Corporations are thus about long-term value creation.

Corporations are (or should be) constraint by law. The never (or should never) initiate the use of force. If they do, they are (or should be) made to pay.

Democratic governments are elected based on rhetoric. However, being headed by humans, they are motivated by desire for power. Since government sets, adjudicates and enforces the law, the degree to which it is constraint by law is low and uneven. A democracy rarely indiscriminately kills its own citizens, but it routinely engages in killing foreigners (war), sending its own people to death (conscription), steals (taxes) and imprisons innocents (drug laws).

If you don’t like Walmart, nobody forces you to give it money. If many people refuse to give their business to Walmart, it will die, just like countless other corporations.

If you don’t like the government and try to do the same, men with guns will eventually come to pay a visit.

I will pick corporations any day.

aye, me too :wink:

Eran,

But pick any corporation today, it exists as it does because of government and relies upon government. As you said, corporations are constrained by law, which is a function of government that must exist to enforce it. Debaitor made a good point-

Doesn’t that make your pick for corporations also a pick for government?

Corporations like British East India Company, Dutch East India Company etc. did everything you accuse governments as doing, to foreigners. They were quite popular where they were incorporated too.

Power can certainly help generate more profits for the shareholders and I don’t see a corporation shying away from it should those in control see it fit to do so.

Don’t assume what corporations cannot do in the absence of a restraining force.