Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Q: Do you believe corporations = conservative politics?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:23 AM
Original message
Q: Do you believe corporations = conservative politics?
If so, why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Boardroom psychology.
Who will be the first thing to say: This will cost MONEY but we should do it because it's the right thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think you need to look at the meaning of the word corporation
and pick another word.

Would you say that the corporation for public broadcasting is conservative?

I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. For Profit Corporations would be more accurate...
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a Non-Profit partially government funded entity, but then again, so is the Postal Service. Most Charities are also Corporations, but all the honest ones are at least Non-Profits, same for Churches(501c), at least according to the IRS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesbassman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. It depends on what type of "conservative " politics you look at.
Fiscal or social conservatism are not mutually inclusive. And corporations are similar, there are fiscally conservative ones and there are socially conservative ones. Likewise there are also progressive corporations. The problem is that the corporate entity itself has been mutated into a status equal to, and in some ways more empowered than the individual. This was not the original intent for corps. They were originally set up to provide a means for large projects to be undertaken without all of the risk and liability resting on one individual. However, as time went on, unscrupulous and greedy men saw corps as a way to manipulate the system and the laws and rules covering corps were changed and amended to produce the monsters we have today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes. Key is "saw corps as a way to manipulate the system "
I would say that a small group of the very largest corporations are able to manipulate, in fact outright control, the regulatory process to get rules that give them an unbreakable advantage. This system is therefore not at all, in fact completely the opposite of, the 'free market' ideal so often invoked. I think competition works quite nicely, more often than not, on a small scale (best shoemaker gets the most business, customers get good shoes at a reasonable price). But when a corporation gets too large it gets an outsized influence over the regulatory system. It can quite literally buy special regulations to protect itself from competition (e.g. GM and others getting tariffs to allow them to make crappy cars at a high price, oil companies able to prevent development of alternate energy sources, drug companies able to prevent competition from makers of generic drugs, etc.)

A good idea, I believe, would be a progressive tax based on the SIZE of the corporation: the larger the gross income of the corporation, the higher the taxes. This would serve to a) collect money more from companies which are doing well and give the struggling ones a chance to thrive and b) prevent companies from getting so large that they can rig the system for their own benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
33. it's hard to come up with
more than a pathetic few "progressive corporations"....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newswolf56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. History proves beyond any doubt that capitalism requires...
ever greater oppression to maintain growth and maximize profit. Hence capitalism -- the elevation of infinite greed into ultimate virtue -- invariably morphs into fascism: precisely what is happening in the United States today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. The pendulum will swing back
There are forces at work that are stronger than any politician or activist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Jim, can you expand on that a bit?
What pendulum are you referring to, and what forces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Ok
Well the pendulum is the political center of the country. The left and the right can move it only so far before it must come back.

For example, middle and lower middle class voters in purple and red states, that have voted for the Republican party, will see they are losing ground under Conservative Republican trickle down economic policy. And this economic reality is one of the forces that will slow, then reverse the pendulum.

How extreme will Republican policy be viewed over time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newswolf56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. With all due respect, in this instance I think you're dead wrong:
There are no longer any "forces that slow, then reverse the pendulum." This is because historical developments -- some of them without precedent -- have eliminated all such forces, not only now but quite probably forever. These developments include:

(1)-The collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist Revolution of 1917 terrified capitalism into disguising the fact it is nothing more than the means of elevating infinite greed into ultimate virtue; thus capitalism was forced to assume a less-savage facade. The presence of the U.S.S.R. in the international equation -- no matter how imperfectly the Soviet Union fulfilled its own promise of economic democracy -- was a powerful and often effective obstruction to capitalist domination. Indeed the variously named KGB was without peer as a thorn in capitalism's side.

(2)-The destruction of the New Deal and the marginalization of all its advocates. The New Deal was unquestionably humanity's best reflection of the global influence of Marxism and thus the best possible response to the innate savagery of capitalism. The New Deal grafted the historical truth of class struggle onto U.S. constitutional principles, with official recognition of the paradox that capitalism is both intrinsically evil yet -- at this sad stage of human development -- nevertheless vital. But from the perspective of the capitalists themselves, the New Deal was as much an obstruction at home as the Soviet Union was abroad: hence the aborted capitalist/fascist coup of 1934 and all the subsequent domestic political history -- assassinations, scandals etc. -- leading to capitalism's ultimate achievement: the Bush Regime, the unifying purpose of which is to restore capitalism to all its original unlimited tyrannosauric savagery.

(3)-The lockstep control of mass media via corporate monopolies. Forty-five years ago, when I entered journalism, 90 percent of all U.S. newspapers were independently and locally owned, which meant U.S. journalism was as diversely opinioned as the population itself. Now nearly 98 percent of all U.S. media outlets -- print and broadcast alike -- are owned by fewer than a dozen monopolies, and these have interlocking boards of directors. Thus capitalism now speaks with a single infinitely greedy voice. The apparent variations in its message are merely illusions to prop up the delusion of democracy when in fact there is merely ever-more-obvious tyranny.

(4)-The deliberate dumbing-down of the U.S. citizenry by corporate-run public schools and academia. By any standard imaginable, no industrialized people on Earth are more pathetically ignorant -- and therefore no people on earth are more easily defrauded and manipulated.

(5)-The Big Reveal: now that most Americans are too zomboid-minded to think about it (see 2, 3 and 4 above), replacement of the Big Lie that "capitalism is merely an economic system" with the ever-more-obvious truth that the core ethos of the New World Order is governance of the entire planet as if it were a corporation. The corollary fact here is that "the global economy" is merely the newest euphemism for fascism -- fascism precisely as its founders described it: absolute rule by unapologetically tyrannical executives, total enslavement of all the rest of us. Think Wal-Mart on a global scale.

(6)-The longer-range implications of Peak Oil and global warming. The impending combined political, economic and technological collapse is without precedent in human history. For example when the Roman Empire collapsed, the characteristic horse-lever-pulley-oxen technology continued undiminished until it was replaced by the technologies of the Industrial Revolution; the characteristic post-Roman economy ran on of its own inertia until international trade was shut down by the Muslim invasions of the seventh and eighth centuries -- thus the economic motive behind the later Crusades, which in turn generated the economic impetus (including "surplus" wealth) for the Renaissance and thus too for the subsequent Industrial Revolution. NOTHING LIKE THIS CAN EVER HAPPEN AGAIN. Humanity has become so dependent upon petroleum that when the petro-economy dies, petro-technology (and petro-politics) will die with it. The BEST scenario projects the restoration of horse-and-buggy technology, including the end of flight forever and a wholesale return to steam and sail propulsion; the worst scenario projects a return (literally) to the stone age; both predict a human die-out (fostered by a combination of warfare, plague and starvation) more dire than anything in the planet’s history: reduction of the human population by as much as 90 percent. A collapse of this magnitude does not allow for any pendulum-swing: the last time around it ushered in a Dark Age that lasted nearly 1500 years -- a Dark Age that, based on the resurgence of theocracy, is in fact still continuing. This time -- with nothing like the rescue-technology provided by petroleum ever again even remotely possible -- the Dark Age will literally last forever: that is, until humanity itself becomes extinct. See also (8) below.

(7)-The re-emergence of tyrannosauric capitalism in all its innately fascist savagery is a wholly predictable response to the impending collapse summarized in (6). The ruling class intends to maintain its position no matter what. Even in the best of times, the only way it can accomplish this goal -- that is, the maintenance of profits and "growth" -- is by enslaving the rest of us. But now with genuine apocalypse just around the corner, the capitalists' intent becomes unapologetically brutal: hence (especially as a psychological preparation for the open restoration of slavery) the concept of "human capital," also the methodical concentration of wealth by various strategies both economic (outsourcing, downsizing, pension-theft) and political (destruction of what remains of the social safety net, refusal to spend money on public transport, deliberately genocidal measures like the Medicare Prescription Drug Lord Benefit). Hence too -- though far too late to be of any genuine help -- the greater-than-ever relevance of Marx, especially the historical truth of class struggle.

(8)-The re-emergence of theocracy as a primary mode of social control. Until the Industrial Revolution, Western Civilization suffered under an unbroken Dark Age of theocratic tyranny, 1,476 years of the unspeakable horror of absolute rule by Abrahamic religious authorities -- a climate of infinitely hateful misogynism and infinite oppression not a whit different from what we see in the Muslim world today -- this from the Edict of Milan (aka the Edict of Constantine) in 313AD until the American Revolution, which gave birth to the modern world's first deliberately secular state. Now humanity is backsliding into what is obviously an inescapable Dark Age state of oppression. Indeed, since the rigid hierarchy and limitless greed essential to capitalism were born of Abrahamic dogma -- "god's chosen people" whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic or economic; all of nature (including woman) as the property of “the chosen” to enslave or exploit at will -- it is only logical that capitalism would return to its source to facilitate maximum tyranny. Hence the bottomless corporate funding of Abrahamic Fundamentalism (whether Christian or Islamic) as the ultimate means of guaranteeing a population reduced to mindless zomboid compliance; hence too the why-factor underlying the overwhelming probability of an endless Dark Age.

(9)-The capture of the Democratic Party by the forces of capitalist tyranny means there is absolutely no hope for progressive change within the system See above, (2), "the marginalization of all (the New Deal's) advocates." Hence for example the Clinton Administration was as hateful to poor and disabled people as were the Republican administrations before and after it. This is the essence of the problem faced by U.S. progressives: the fact that we -- like the New Deal advocates -- are being marginalized to absolute powerlessness: a condition that promises to be everlasting precisely because of permanent and unbreakable capitalist control of mass media and public education.

(10)-The emergence of new and potentially everlasting technologies of oppression means there is no hope of liberation. Even in a climate of total collapse, government in service to capitalism will always maintain its ability to tyrannize its slave populations -- “slave population” in this instance meaning every one of us who is not part of the ruling class. Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union ended forever all hope of liberation from without, so does the advent of oppressive surveillance technology end forever all hope of liberation from within. As long as government exists to serve and protect the ruling class -- and under capitalism that is the ONLY purpose of government (a fact ever more obvious as the Bush Regime ignores its critics and concentrates its power) -- there will always be electricity to fuel the surveillance apparatus, even if the electricity has to be generated by slaves peddling bicycles, and there will always be the means of exterminating those of us who are dissidents. Thus the new technologies destroy not only any hope of self-liberation via a Marxist renaissance but -- in concert with theocracy -- also nullify every scintilla of the formerly near-infinite potential for liberation implicit in the resurrection of the symbol of the Great Goddess and the associated advent of ecofeminism and ecosocialism.

For these ten reasons alone -- and there are many others -- the pendulum theory of politics and governance is no longer valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Quite alarming n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. Excellent summary! I agree (with trepidation) entirely.
Edited on Sun Apr-09-06 10:58 AM by TahitiNut
:scared:

I would add to that the fact that, of all the 'reactions' to Marx, there has never been an institutionalized measure of the share of wealth created by labor that's confiscated by ownership. I personally estimate it to be about 60% in the US and about 80% globally - based on financial analysis measures such as Net Operating Income Per Employee. Without such metrics, the 'Ownership Share' becomes a stealth factor - off the radar - and completely ignored when it comes to public policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
40. What about Sweden?
They may have a better socially safety net and more government involvement in the economy, but ultimately they have a market driven economy where capital plays a key role.

If the path the U.S. is taking is an inevitable consequence of capitalism, then how is it that some European social democracies can easily stray from this path with the implementation of some key reforms aimed at maintaining economic justice?

Economic growth has been pretty steady in Sweden for the last 50 years:

http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____26664.asp

Are the Swedish people oppressed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newswolf56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Note Point (2) in my #26 above:
The New Deal was the United States' attempt to achieve social justice and economic democracy without eradicating capitalism, and (precisely because it allowed capitalism to survive, flourish and totally subvert the political system), the New Deal was destroyed, and the U.S. set on the road to becoming a corporate slave state -- a road on which there is now not even the faintest possibility of ever turning back.

Europe -- particularly after the lessons of World War II (Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were both founded on U.S. corporate money) -- has never been seduced into blinding itself to the core evil of capitalism and thus controls it as rigidly as it controls, say, a nuclear reactor. This is facilitated by a couple of facts: that Europeans are many times better educated than U.S. citizens and are therefore far more adept at weighing political and economic questions (no accident, since the purpose of U.S. public education is NOT to produce an educated electorate but rather a dumbed-down, apolitical, lockstep-conformist, slavishly obedient workforce); that European political systems, which are infinitely more democratic than the present-day U.S. model, embrace a full Left-Right spectrum of debate (including Communists and socialists of all possible doctrinal variations), while the U.S., chiefly by a combination of corporate control of education, media and political finance, methodically excludes all political options even slightly left of Right-Center.

All the Swedish example does is demonstrate the absolute necessity of recognizing that capitalism is as dangerous to human liberty as nuclear power is to human life -- which merely proves my point.

Because the U.S. has failed to control capitalism, capitalism has raged not only out of control but now (and with the addition of theocracy to its arsenal of oppression) it has far outpaced any hope of ever being controlled again -- which means our only alternative is to outlaw it completely. Which of course is impossible: hence the total failure of the American Experiment, the utter and everlasting hopelessness of the political situation here at home, and the inevitability that U.S. capitalism -- now and forever bolstered by the truly omnipotent, truly unbeatable thermonuclear goon-squad of the U.S. military -- will achieve its intention of conquering and enslaving the entire planet, Europe included. Indeed the U.S. aggression we are witnessing in the Middle East today we will see in the rest of the world tomorrow. Europeans especially sense this steadily worsening threat -- though so do many others -- which is precisely why the U.S. is ever more thoroughly despised everywhere on earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cdriggs Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
8. corporations fund candidates = corporate puppets
To get elected it take hundreds of thousands of dollars, which corporations supply, to candidates that who will support their corporate agenda, that money goes to pr firms, and the corporate controlled media...
Which leaves, "we the people" having a choice between two corporate controlled candidates, very similar to the Soviet Union, except they were more honest, they only had one party... And we only have one party, the corporate party, thanks to corporate influence... The only way to change this is for citizens to fund the elections process, and have debates with all the candidates invited, and ordinary people asking the candidates questions... Good luck getting the corporate puppets in power now to pass any legislation that would end corporate control of our elections...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Hi cdriggs!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. Narrow that down abit, do you mean corporations like Walmart or ..........
....are you referring to something else? A corporation like Walmart is extremely conservative but on the other hand some of the public service Corporations like public radio, etc are extremely liberal or at the very least middle of the road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. Not necessarily. For instance; NeoCon politics are NOT fiscally
conservative by any means and tend to be detrimental to smaller corporations, even multinational ones.

First of all, as many have mentioned upthread, we need to make a distinction between for-profit and non-profit.

My husband works for a multinational, albeit a rather small one.

Said corporation stays out of politics, but the business structure is fiscally conservative, yet progressive (new markets=willingness to take risks) and socially fairly libertarian/tolerant; as I see it, that equals liberal.

We know many of the upper-level management and they seem to be again--fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. The ones I've spoken politics with tended to vote to the moderate Left.

FWIW, he used to work at Bechtel, again, fiscally conservative, but actually fairly socially liberal in the corporate structure at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
11. no.
Why do you ask?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
12. Fiscally conservative, socially tolerant.
Very similar to Bill Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. Tell that to all the folks
screwed by Nafta in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. No.
Bushian corporations (high cronyism, low results) are just in it for money. They are like Abramoff or Lay. They have no real conservative values agenda. They just play on the "traditional" tie of legitimate businesses and conservative politics to commit their frauds and play out their schemes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. Anti-union, anti-consumer protection,
anti-regulation, anti-enviroment. They basically, by their nature, put profits ahead of everything else. I would consider that to be in step with government conservatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes. Bottom line is most important, so social concerns
are ever less so. Corporate Democrats are usually DLC. To my mind, DLC Democrats are gutless (don't want to make any moves that would make those corporate donations dry up!), anti-Democratic as far as their support for social programs that would provide a safety net for the neediest Americans, and they support war (which benefits most corporations' bottom lines). All are very conservative stances.

The only DLC Democrat, at the moment, who is showing any movement away from the above is John Kerry. While I am no great fan of the Senator's, he should be commended for the stances he has taken lately. I wish he had done so sooner. And, I still hope I see the day he vocally and demonstrably denounces the DLC and walks away from them. It will make it easier to trust his actions and stances in the extreme.

'Nuff said.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
17. wouldn't it be explaining the obvious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. Republican or conservative?
Republicans call themselves "conservatives" but are anything but.

As a liberal Democrat, I support many conservative values, like balanced budgets and avoiding foreign entanglements.

These ideas are anathema to modern-day republicans.

So I'm not sure how to answer.

But certainly war-profiteering corporations and the associated corruption are a major obstacle to progress in this country.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
19. "Why know the name of a thing when the thing itself you do not know?"
Edited on Sat Apr-08-06 02:22 PM by TahitiNut
"Why know the name of a thing when the thing itself you do not know? Whose work is it but your own to open your eyes? But indeed, the work of the universe is to make such a fool of you that you will know yourself for one, and so begin to be wise!" — George MacDonald, Lilith, 1895

I sometimes feel like I'm just another chimpanzee in a roomful of typewriters. I doubt there's any two of us that either comprehend identically more than 10% of the ideological and sociological underpinnings of contemporary political behavior or have the foggiest beginnings of congruent terminology for describing these forces. So, we delude ourselves in using word-symbols as mere sacks to contain parts of the amorphous mass of our ignorance - swapping symbols in a pretense of communication.

:eyes:

Articles of incorporation (and associated business licenses) establish an entitlement for a group of people to engage in some economic (and political) activity without personal liability. It's the very antithesis of "personal responsibility"! What could be more obvious? Enron was/is a collection of hundreds of such fictitious entities - a vast shell game of irresponsibility and privilege.

We have these strange, perverted animals running amok in elected office with the goal of "liberalizing" (deregulating and unleashing) corporate behavior. Some seem to call these folks "neo-liberals" - since they rarely seem inclined to grant unhindered liberties to actual flesh-and-blood 'persons' - except, of course for those 'modern knights' encased in the armor of corporatism and mail of wealth. Thus we hear this bizarre description of "socially conservative and economically liberal" - which is a kind of insanity, imho.

We then have an allied tribe of such animals working furiously to shift all functions of The People's government (encumbered with the 'inconveniences' of a Constitution and Bill of Rights) into the (euphemistically labeled) "private sector" (i.e. corporations). How convenient. For-profit with powers of government ... and none of the encumbrances like elections and safeguards against tyranny.

Sometimes I think this country ought to be declared an insane asylum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
34. u said it, tahitinut
"...this bizarre description of 'socially conservative and economically liberal' --which is a kind of insanity IMO"

----EXACTLY. This strikes me as one of those convenient labels that is used to make everybody feel better about things...but really has no substance.

A lot of people cannot face the truth of what the corporations they are associated with REALLY stand for...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. Historically, for the most part yes. But stay tuned.
As many in the "liberal" community have been trying to get across, to no avail, to the religiously Right (NOT the Religious Right, but the religously Right) economic and social egalitarianism, in the long, run makes sense economically even without considering the salutory effects on the soul.

When, after WWII, the Unions finally started to achieve some redistribution of the wealth by gaining wage increases for their members (which never would have occurred in a free market economy without intervention in the interest of human values - allowing workers to organize and demand a more reasonable wage), the increased wealth in the hands of average wage earning people (not just Union members, these benefits were enjoyed by many millions more who never attended a Union meeting) the economy began an unprecedented period of growth that resulted in the improvement of the standard of living for most Americans and also made the wealthy wealthier (if they had been invested in the right areas of the economy) than they ever would have been had the more corporate-fuedal system remained, unmodified, in place.

As working people voted in Democratic administrations, legislation was passed making oppoportunities for education more widely available, regardless of your economic stata. Everyone benefited by increased opportunities for education and advancement being made more available to many more people who otherwise, in a more Dickensian regime, so adored by the religiously Conservative (Of course the religiously Conservative are not above wielding any influence they have to gain advantages for themselves, thus creating loop-holes in their vaunted Value of "make it on your own"). The broader availability of education lead to increased productivity growth, from which all benefited in terms of a more robust economy, greater job creation and enhanced standard of living.

Now, corporations are beginning to appreciate the value of a society assuring that all can obtain some degree of health care (by taking the burden from individual companies and spreading it over the entire society you can increase the corporations competitiveness in the world market-place). Such corporate stalwarts as General Motors, Ford and other Fortune 500 members are beginning to "see the light", although admittedly, they arrived at this enlightened perspective via the route of self-interest. But herein lies the point. As it turns out, most, if not all, of the policy positions of the "Liberals" have really been worthy of consideration not only for their humanitarian value, but also because doing the 'right' by others, in the end makes practical sense too. In other words, as some unknown rude 'philosopher' once said: "What goes around, comes around." is an eminently wise observation.

As corporate managements becomes more sophisticated and less 'traditional' and more practical in their thinking, I think we will see more of this enlightened approach to management which will attenuate any connection between corporations and the religiously conservative.

However, different industries are not the same. The extractive industries seem to be resistant to all efforts to educate and enlighten. As an example, consider the long campaign (funded, in no small part, by Exxon-Mobil) to forestall intelligent public policy re Global Warming. A multi-faceted disinformation campaign has confused many that there has been a controversy among scientists about the existence of global warming and whether it's caused by the actions of man (fossil fuel use). This episode may be the most reckless, destructive campaign ever hatched by the extractive industries - historically, perhaps the most irresponsible industry of all, when it comes to disregard for the effects of their actions on the environment, on the safety of workers and effects on human health in general, the extractive industries will probably always be intractable foes of rational long term policies as they pertain to energy technologies.

I guess there is no simple answer to this. I suggest you tell the Industry association you are doing research for they will improve their image when they begin to show some social responsibility in their lobbying efforts (that is start supporting sensible, rational public policy -for a change).

Tell them to trade public relations and subversion of sensible public policy for rational particpation in societies efforts to meet the challenges that face us - most notably Global Warming and the urgent need to RAPIDLY develop renewable resources.

Also, tell them that regressive tax policies will NOT grow their market as well as progressive tax policies which acts to redress the ineveitable concentration of capital in the hands of those who have the wealth and power to either beat the system (under Democratic administrations) or own and shape the system in their favor under Republican regimes.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
23. Nope. But a lot of politics, both liberal and conservative,

...are mere tools created by astroturfing corporations for use by the corporations in pursuing their agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. No way.
Look at all the democratic corporations out there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. They're still part of the problem
they all worship the almighty profit ubber alles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
25. A: I believe corrupt corporations = RW politics.
NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
29. yes and no

I doubt that the average Fortune 500 CEO or board member has anything in particular against pro-choice or gay marriage. I'm sure many would be somewhat moderately liberal on these kind of matters.

I'm sure some of the more far-sighted corporate executives would see the need for an adequate social safety, generous funding for education and might be favorable toward at least some version of universal health care.

I doubt that many corporate executives have much time for the religious right. And I'm sure many are concerned about the excesses of neoconservative foreign policy; especially if it is carried out incompetently.

Obviously the defense industrial corporations would expect to continue their multi-billion dollar subsidies. And the oil and gas industrial corporations would expect the continuation of a foreign policy that secures and is favorable toward their investments and assets. It goes without saying that the health care industry and every other industry wants and will spend great resources to secure a government that secures and is favorable toward their assets and investments.

When it comes to neoliberal economics otherwise known as "free trade" these would be articles of faith in almost all of the corporate world. In short they would want a government that allows them to do what they want, when they want and how they want and would protect their assets against the demands of what James Madison in the Federalist Papers called in "the unwashed masses without property or principle". They would also share the conviction also expressed by John Jay in the Federalist Papers that "the people who own the country should run the country".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
31. Here's a simple solution...
How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
by Robert Hinkley (originally published at www.commondreams.org)

<snip>

In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders...

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

<snip>

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the "Code for Corporate Citizenship." In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders,

...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.

This simple amendment would effect a dramatic change in the underlying mechanism that drives corporate malfeasance.

<snip>


http://www.business-ethics.com/constitEconDemoc.htm (second article down)

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. kicking for a simple solution - 26 words...
:kick:

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
32. worship of the free market
along with all those damn 'liberal' regulations that try to prevent them from polluting the water and air, and poisoning our food in the name of the almighty 'profit'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
35. Greed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
36. no. corporations = the psychotic, cancerous end result of capitalism
the capitalists have simply hijacked "conservative politics" to their own end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
37. Technically I own a corp, and gosh golly I am the president
of such... and my politics have veered very much left over the last few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Have you read "unequal protection"?
Once you add some partners (stockholders) and the corporation takes on an identity different from you (for profit Corporations are "artificial persons") the fundamental amorality of a corporation becomes apparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
38. Yes, corporations = aristocracy of capital, like old-time nobility.
Capital rules in their world. When they hold all the economic power because they hold all the political power, they rule unimpeded.

Conservative politics are all about control by an aristocracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
41. Huge corporate monopolies = fascist, or more definitively,
Edited on Sun Apr-09-06 12:37 PM by Zorra
corporatist politics. Corporations have used, (bought may be a more accurate word), the republican party in order to overthrow our democracy and install a not so shadow government directed by, and in the service of, corporate interests.

The fact that most long time self-described conservatives align themselves with the republican party and their corporate sponsors, and condone the obvious, ongoing destruction of our democracy in favor of control of our government by private interests, would lead me to say that yes, generally speaking and when the word "conservative" is used in this context, corporations do indeed equal conservative politics.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power".
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
44. Personally, I'm more interested in YOUR answer.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. After a day and a half, I am too.
I hear crickets...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-09-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. same here.
I suspect that I know why the question was posed, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC