The Corporation

[I think not]

Director Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott
Writer Joel Bakan, Harold Crooks, Mark Achbar

I had heard of this documentary film for quite some time, I never rushed to purchase the film, despite being a documentary addict. I was recently reminded of it on this board, purchased it and watched it.....several times.

My first reaction to the title of this documentary was, "Which Corporation?" Well it turns out, all of them.

The documentary makes the parallel that a corporation, given its legal premise of being a person, can be categorically defined as a psychopath. Psychopaths, as is defined in the documentary, are those who feel no empathy towards others, care only about themselves, do not consider the effects of their actions upon others in addition to a few other niceties. A corporation is legally accountable only to its shareholders. Any actions by management against that fundamental principle acts in breach of fiduciary duty. This would lead us to believe that a corporation is not even accountable to the government. The documentary starts out by saying “yes”, but often alludes to the fact that nowadays governments are more accountable to corporations than the other way around.
But what The Corporation fails to address with enough depth is just how much impact people really have on corporations. A corporation is, after all, only as good as the people who inhibit it. Sure, an executive has to worry about pleasing shareholders and winning bread for his family, but in the end the willingness to decrease pollution, or creating better working conditions, lies in the hands of that same executive and not some faceless entity known as the ‘corporation.’ A corporation is nothing but a legal entity. It is a shell that is run by humans, filled by human emotions and considerations. To place blame on a corporation, is to place blame on the shoulders of those human beings.
And if the wrong people happen to run a corporation, as the film goes on to argue, it is up to the public to change this. Because if all a corporation is really worried about is its bottom line, then we as a public have all the power in the world. If a policy of a corporation hurts the public, the public can fight back by boycotting products, gaining media attention, lobbying the government for proper regulation and so on. Just as long as we, as citizens of this world, refrain from merely talking about it and actually go out and do something. So perhaps, at the end, the corporation remains only a psychopath while the public allows it to.

 

[Scape]

ALBA: Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean

differing from the latter in that it advocates a socially-oriented trade block rather than one strictly based on the logic of deregulated profit maximization. ALBA appeals to the egalitarian principles of justice and equality that are innate in human beings, the well-being of the most dispossessed sectors of society, and a reinvigorated sense of solidarity toward the underdeveloped countries of the western hemisphere, so that with the required assistance, they can enter into trade negotiations on more favorable terms than has been the case under the dictates of developed countries.

Trade deals that give preference to ethical considerations could strengthen this trend as well, just like green investment solutions catch on so to can ethical ones.

 

[Reverend Blair]

So all of these corporations just have the wrong people running them? Corporations aren't psychopaths, but the people running them are? Should we be committing these people then? They are obviously, based on their actions, a danger to others.

People have been fighting back against corporations. That is why you see protests against globalization. That is why you see movies like The Corporation.

To say that we are in control of corporations is disingenuous. They have massive influence over governments through political donations, threats of job losses, and the ever present think tanks of the radical right.

By the way, the definition of psychopath used in the movie is the standard definition used in psych courses.

 

[I think not]

Its not all corporations Rev. Not every single corporation is a psychopath.

Another issue this documentary never brought up, is a solution to the problem.

Who will replace these corporations? Government? I can say massive government = big brother.

An example, Shell in Nigeria pumps oil, the documentary states 10 people were hanged for protesting. Shell didnt hang them. The government did. The FDA approved rBGH for use on cows, 3/4 of the dairy farmers in the states have boycotted the product. In Canada Shiv Chopra spoke against rBGH and was eventually fired. So who bares more of the burden here? A corporation that is permitted to do anything or the government that allows them to do so?

Governments bare the burden of responsibility as much as the citizens around the world.

In Bolivia they protested against privatisation of the water and they won. In India they banned the use of genetically engineered seeding. It doesn't take much effort. We're just used to being told we can't make a difference and we put trust in governments to take care of its citizens.

That is where we fail.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Another issue this documentary never brought up, is a solution to the problem.

Actually they did. The suggestion that false personhood be taken away from corporations is the first step and was a recurring theme in the film. So is the removal of political clout from corporations. Those are solutions.

Who will replace these corporations? Government? I can say massive government = big brother.

Nobody is talking about replacing them, just making them comply to the needs and wishes of the population instead of the other way around.

An example, Shell in Nigeria pumps oil, the documentary states 10 people were hanged for protesting. Shell didnt hang them. The government did.

Except that it was corporations, such as Shell and Halliburton, calling the shots there.

The FDA approved rBGH for use on cows, 3/4 of the dairy farmers in the states have boycotted the product.

Monsanto (manufacturer of rBGH) is a major political contributor. Because corporations have so much influence politically, much of the approval process consists of reviewing (not replicating) their research. Since corporations such as Monsanto routinely hold back research they can sneak all kinds of things by government regulators.

Monsanto also had two Fox reporters who tried to break the story silenced...at least they tried.

In Canada Shiv Chopra spoke against rBGH and was eventually fired.

Again...corporations have massive political influence.

In Bolivia they protested against privatisation of the water and they won.

How many children have died due to the privatisation of water world-wide? People are slowly taking it back, but the World Bank IMF, and various governments (most notably the US) are still pushing for privatisation as conditions for both loans and debt relief.

In India they banned the use of genetically engineered seeding.

And corporations have been implicated in the "accidental" release of seeds many, many times. Not only that, but the economic havoc the presence of GM seeds has brought on farmers in India has led to massive problems with suicide.

You also didn't mention that your government has basically banned seed saving in Iraq as a pay-back to Monsanto for political favours. All crops in Iraq will now be owned by Monsanto. That is not just a problem for Iraqi farmers but endangers heritage crops that have been slowly developed since humans began farming.

It doesn't take much effort.

People have died in protests against privatization. I'd say that's a fair bit of effort.

 

[I think not]

The removal of the definition of a "person" would be applicable to small businesses as well, they fall under the same legal entity.

The legal structure of small and large corporations is the same.

You speak of political influence of corporations and yet you always seem to stray off the reality that governments are a form of corporations.

Governments, like corporations are intended to represent those who put them there, and they dont do that, by turning a blind eye when they have some sort of political or financial gain.

When the minimum wage in the US is $5.15 an hour and about equal to that in Canada $5.70 to $9.00 (depending on the province), and $0.30 an hour in third world countries. Who is mostly to blame for this? Corporations who seek to make profits? Or governments that permit this?

I'd really like to see a documentary on how governments and politicians put their personal interests ahead of those they "supposedly" represent.

When Shell pumps oil and people get hanged for it, point the finger to the governments, not the corporations. Corrupt governments allow these things to happen, under the "influence" of corporations.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The removal of the definition of a "person" would be applicable to small businesses as well, they fall under the same legal entity.

The legal structure of small and large corporations is the same.

And your point is?

You speak of political influence of corporations and yet you always seem to stray off the reality that governments are a form of corporations.

No, actually, they aren't. A corporation is a very particular entity. So is a government. Except in the case of oligarchy those entities are very different and so are the reasons for their existence.

Governments, like corporations are intended to represent those who put them there, and they dont do that, by turning a blind eye when they have some sort of political or financial gain.

Corporations answer only to their shareholders. Governments answer to the population in general.

When the minimum wage in the US is $5.15 an hour and about equal to that in Canada $5.70 to $9.00 (depending on the province), and $0.30 an hour in third world countries. Who is mostly to blame for this? Corporations who seek to make profits?

BINGO!

Corporations have massive influence over governments, especially in places where democracy is non-existent or weak. That allows the $0.30 an hour wages because unions and labour laws are kept out by the government. At the same time those corporations influence the governments here not to insist on labour rights in developing countries as part of trade deals.

I'd really like to see a documentary on how governments and politicians put their personal interests ahead of those they "supposedly" represent.

Watch the news on any given night.

When Shell pumps oil and people get hanged for it, point the finger to the governments, not the corporations. Corrupt governments allow these things to happen, under the "influence" of corporations.

Corporations work to corrupt governments in order to control them.

 

[I think not]

The removal of the definition of a "person" would be applicable to small businesses as well, they fall under the same legal entity.

The legal structure of small and large corporations is the same.

And your point is?

Incorporating is one of the best ways a business owner can protect his or her personal assets. Most people choose to incorporate solely for this reason, but there are other advantages as well. For example, the corporate business structure allows you to save money in taxes, provides greater business flexibility and lets you more easily raise capital. And small business forms a large part of any economy

You speak of political influence of corporations and yet you always seem to stray off the reality that governments are a form of corporations.

No, actually, they aren't. A corporation is a very particular entity. So is a government. Except in the case of oligarchy those entities are very different and so are the reasons for their existence.

The reasons for their existence is simple, corporations are there to make money, governments exist to represent and protect the peoples interests. Who follows closer to their purpose? I would say corporations.

Governments, like corporations are intended to represent those who put them there, and they dont do that, by turning a blind eye when they have some sort of political or financial gain.

Corporations answer only to their shareholders.
Correct.
Governments answer to the population in general.
Great philosophy. Show me a government that actually does that.

When the minimum wage in the US is $5.15 an hour and about equal to that in Canada $5.70 to $9.00 (depending on the province), and $0.30 an hour in third world countries. Who is mostly to blame for this? Corporations who seek to make profits?

BINGO!

Corporations have massive influence over governments, especially in places where democracy is non-existent or weak. That allows the $0.30 an hour wages because unions and labour laws are kept out by the government. At the same time those corporations influence the governments here not to insist on labour rights in developing countries as part of trade deals.

I agree with you Rev on alot of what you say, you make governments sound like the victims though. In my opinion it is governments that are the true culprits. Corporations influencing governments means corporations are adhering to their philosophy of making money, governments here have failed their philosophies.

I'd really like to see a documentary on how governments and politicians put their personal interests ahead of those they "supposedly" represent.

Watch the news on any given night.

Bah, they only tell you what you want to hear. Keep you brainwashed.

When Shell pumps oil and people get hanged for it, point the finger to the governments, not the corporations. Corrupt governments allow these things to happen, under the "influence" of corporations.

Corporations work to corrupt governments in order to control them.

This is the major point I think I differ with you. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". If governments followed that simple rule, then all this corporation chit chat is nonsense. We wouldnt be talking about it. If corporations didnt exist then another entity would be their to corrupt government.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Incorporating is one of the best ways a business owner can protect his or her personal assets.

The head officers of the corporation have to be responsible for the actions of the corporation though. If they are not, then you've effectively put the corporation above the law.

If you want to protect the assets, within reason, of the individual, then do so through personal bankruptcy law. If you want to protect individuals for being responsible for the criminal acts of the corporations they operate, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Most people choose to incorporate solely for this reason, but there are other advantages as well. For example, the corporate business structure allows you to save money in taxes, provides greater business flexibility and lets you more easily raise capital. And small business forms a large part of any economy

Nobody is suggesting an end to the corporation though, just controls on the "rights" of corporations.

The reasons for their existence is simple, corporations are there to make money, governments exist to represent and protect the peoples interests. Who follows closer to their purpose? I would say corporations.

I would say that if we got corporations out of politics, banned donations and put some serious restrictions on them, that governments would be forced to work in the people's interest.

Great philosophy. Show me a government that actually does that.

The government of Manitoba has come a whole lot closer since they banned corporate donations.

I agree with you Rev on alot of what you say, you make governments sound like the victims though. In my opinion it is governments that are the true culprits. Corporations influencing governments means corporations are adhering to their philosophy of making money, governments here have failed their philosophies.

But it is the corporate money that prevents change to the way our governments do things. If you take away the false personhood of corporations, ban them from making political donations, and make corporate officers personally responsible for the criminal actions of corporations, then you reduce the influence of corporations on governments.

Bah, they only tell you what you want to hear. Keep you brainwashed.

Actually they don't tell you about corporate influences, since the media is one of those corporate influences. It isn't hard to connect the dots though...look who got the contract, look who made the political donations.

This is the major point I think I differ with you. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". If governments followed that simple rule, then all this corporation chit chat is nonsense.

It is ultimately the corporations who corrupt the governments though. How come Enron wrote US energy policy? How come all crops in Iraq are now owned by Monsanto? How come Cargill wasn't fined for contempt of parliament?

I blame the politicians too, but it is the corporations who control them...I just gave three examples. Our politicians wouldn't get elected without the corporations who own them.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I blame the politicians too, but it is the corporations who control them...I just gave three examples. Our politicians wouldn't get elected without the corporations who own them.

Which is why voting NDP should be a no-brainer...at least you know you're not voting for a corporate shill...

 

[I think not]

Incorporating is one of the best ways a business owner can protect his or her personal assets.

The head officers of the corporation have to be responsible for the actions of the corporation though. If they are not, then you've effectively put the corporation above the law.

The corporations are responsible, aren't corporations held accountable? Don't they pay fines? Aren't officers brought to justice when manipulating information?

If you want to protect the assets, within reason, of the individual, then do so through personal bankruptcy law. If you want to protect individuals for being responsible for the criminal acts of the corporations they operate, you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's not that simple Rev, that was one example. Depending on the industry the business operates, the owners can be open immense risks. Construction for example, people working in a manhole, provide barriers around the hole for no one to fall in, someone jumps over (this has happened), gets hurt, sues the business. Why should the owner of the business be put at risk in a situation like this, granted this is extreme, but there are many other situations like this.

Most people choose to incorporate solely for this reason, but there are other advantages as well. For example, the corporate business structure allows you to save money in taxes, provides greater business flexibility and lets you more easily raise capital. And small business forms a large part of any economy

Nobody is suggesting an end to the corporation though, just controls on the "rights" of corporations.

Perhaps you can give me an idea of what you mean by "rights". I will get a better understanding.

The reasons for their existence is simple, corporations are there to make money, governments exist to represent and protect the peoples interests. Who follows closer to their purpose? I would say corporations.

I would say that if we got corporations out of politics, banned donations and put some serious restrictions on them, that governments would be forced to work in the people's interest.

I agree with you 100%, now lets get our governments to do just that.

Great philosophy. Show me a government that actually does that.

The government of Manitoba has come a whole lot closer since they banned corporate donations.

Good start, lead so the rest of us can have a frame of reference.

I agree with you Rev on alot of what you say, you make governments sound like the victims though. In my opinion it is governments that are the true culprits. Corporations influencing governments means corporations are adhering to their philosophy of making money, governments here have failed their philosophies.

But it is the corporate money that prevents change to the way our governments do things. If you take away the false personhood of corporations, ban them from making political donations, and make corporate officers personally responsible for the criminal actions of corporations, then you reduce the influence of corporations on governments.

So how do you recommend to proceed? Wouldnt you agree it is the governments/people that should act first?

Bah, they only tell you what you want to hear. Keep you brainwashed.

Actually they don't tell you about corporate influences, since the media is one of those corporate influences. It isn't hard to connect the dots though...look who got the contract, look who made the political donations.

Connecting dots? Rev you can tell people on the news that they are a bunch of assholes and they will say it in a way that will fly right over their heads.

This is the major point I think I differ with you. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". If governments followed that simple rule, then all this corporation chit chat is nonsense.

It is ultimately the corporations who corrupt the governments though. How come Enron wrote US energy policy? How come all crops in Iraq are now owned by Monsanto? How come Cargill wasn't fined for contempt of parliament?

I think this process however has to begin on those with ultimate authority. The government and the people.

I blame the politicians too, but it is the corporations who control them...I just gave three examples. Our politicians wouldn't get elected without the corporations who own them.

This is another point though, people need to speak up, like they did in PA on the documentary. I've always believed people make the difference.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The corporations are responsible, aren't corporations held accountable? Don't they pay fines? Aren't officers brought to justice when manipulating information?

The fines are very low compared to the damage done. The officers are rarely held to account. Remember Bhopal, India? Who paid for that? Who went to prison? Nobody. People are still dying every day from something that happened when I was still in high school. Nobody has gone to prison for it.

It's not that simple Rev, that was one example. Depending on the industry the business operates, the owners can be open immense risks. Construction for example, people working in a manhole, provide barriers around the hole for no one to fall in, someone jumps over (this has happened), gets hurt, sues the business. Why should the owner of the business be put at risk in a situation like this, granted this is extreme, but there are many other situations like this.

Reasonable measures negate that though. When I was building fences, we always tossed posts into the holes as soon as they were dug. Why? Because somebody could break a leg in them. We didn't set the posts, we didn't have to. Putting posts in the holes was a reasonable measure.

Perhaps you can give me an idea of what you mean by "rights". I will get a better understanding.

The first is to take away the fallacy that they are people. They are not and should not be extended the same rights as people under the law. Most importantly they should have no say in government. No money, no lobbying. If they get a government loan they pay it back or pay the penalties. If they get a grant to train and employ workers, they do it or pay the grant back and pay fines. If they break a law, then those in charge go to prison...real prison.

I agree with you 100%, now lets get our governments to do just that.

So you'll be supporting Ralph Nader from now on then?

Good start, lead so the rest of us can have a frame of reference.

Except the Conservatives have sworn to reverse the legislation if they ever get back in. Yet another reason to vote NDP.

The national press does its best to ignore provincial legislation like this though. They don't want it spreading. Neither do the Liberals and the Conservatives, who are the national parties that form governments.

So how do you recommend to proceed? Wouldnt you agree it is the governments/people that should act first?

See above.

Connecting dots? Rev you can tell people on the news that they are a bunch of assholes and they will say it in a way that will fly right over their heads.

But the corporate interests run the press. Even our CBC follows the fallacy that business is a more important part of society than, for example, the arts.

I think this process however has to begin on those with ultimate authority. The government and the people.

Only if you believe that is where the ultimate authority lay. I agree that's where is should lay. Our major political parties, and the press that is supposed to keep them honest, does not agree with that though. They favour what is basically an oligarchy.

This is another point though, people need to speak up, like they did in PA on the documentary. I've always believed people make the difference.

Yeah, but one gets tired of a diet of tear gas and rubber bullets after a while. It's hard a hell to make a difference when the cops are beating the crap out of you with batons for tossing a teddy bear at them.

 

[I think not]

The corporations are responsible, aren't corporations held accountable? Don't they pay fines? Aren't officers brought to justice when manipulating information?

The fines are very low compared to the damage done. The officers are rarely held to account. Remember Bhopal, India? Who paid for that? Who went to prison? Nobody. People are still dying every day from something that happened when I was still in high school. Nobody has gone to prison for it.

I remember Union Carbide very well, I too was in school at the time. Here is the problem in my opinion. the reason there was a disaster primarily is because the factory didnt have to comply with strict standards. So they took a short cut that cost thousands of lives. Where is the government in all this? Nowhere. Union Carbide can be blamed for negligence, what would that make the government?

It's not that simple Rev, that was one example. Depending on the industry the business operates, the owners can be open immense risks. Construction for example, people working in a manhole, provide barriers around the hole for no one to fall in, someone jumps over (this has happened), gets hurt, sues the business. Why should the owner of the business be put at risk in a situation like this, granted this is extreme, but there are many other situations like this.

Reasonable measures negate that though. When I was building fences, we always tossed posts into the holes as soon as they were dug. Why? Because somebody could break a leg in them. We didn't set the posts, we didn't have to. Putting posts in the holes was a reasonable measure.

There are no reasonable measures Rev, someone sticks a finger in an outlet and the company gets slammed with a lawsuit.

Perhaps you can give me an idea of what you mean by "rights". I will get a better understanding.

The first is to take away the fallacy that they are people. They are not and should not be extended the same rights as people under the law. Most importantly they should have no say in government. Agreed No money, no lobbying. Agreed If they get a government loan they pay it back or pay the penalties. Agreed If they get a grant to train and employ workers, they do it or pay the grant back and pay fines. Agreed If they break a law, then those in charge go to prison...real prison. Agreed

I agree with you 100%, now lets get our governments to do just that.

So you'll be supporting Ralph Nader from now on then? Hell no

Good start, lead so the rest of us can have a frame of reference.

Except the Conservatives have sworn to reverse the legislation if they ever get back in. Yet another reason to vote NDP.

The national press does its best to ignore provincial legislation like this though. They don't want it spreading. Neither do the Liberals and the Conservatives, who are the national parties that form governments.

So how do you recommend to proceed? Wouldnt you agree it is the governments/people that should act first?

See above.

Connecting dots? Rev you can tell people on the news that they are a bunch of assholes and they will say it in a way that will fly right over their heads.

But the corporate interests run the press. Even our CBC follows the fallacy that business is a more important part of society than, for example, the arts.

There is no objective media, lets face it, private or public.

I think this process however has to begin on those with ultimate authority. The government and the people.

Only if you believe that is where the ultimate authority lay. I agree that's where is should lay. Our major political parties, and the press that is supposed to keep them honest, does not agree with that though. They favour what is basically an oligarchy.

I do agree thats where it should lay and unfortunately you are correct with the press.

This is another point though, people need to speak up, like they did in PA on the documentary. I've always believed people make the difference.

Yeah, but one gets tired of a diet of tear gas and rubber bullets after a while. It's hard a hell to make a difference when the cops are beating the crap out of you with batons for tossing a teddy bear at them.

We can't give up Rev, everything that has been accomplished in human history has been a result of the people, not the corporations, not the governments.

 

[mrmom2]

Vanni said

Which is why voting NDP should be a no-brainer...at least you know you're not voting for a corporate shill...

No just a Crooked Big Union shill.. :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I remember Union Carbide very well, I too was in school at the time. Here is the problem in my opinion. the reason there was a disaster primarily is because the factory didnt have to comply with strict standards. So they took a short cut that cost thousands of lives.

And the US government let them. No only did it let them, it protected them. So what if they killed thousands of people.

There are no reasonable measures Rev, someone sticks a finger in an outlet and the company gets slammed with a lawsuit.

Bullshit.

We can't give up Rev, everything that has been accomplished in human history has been a result of the people, not the corporations, not the governments.

Don't worry, I haven't given up. I'm sick and tired of the excuses I hear though...being accused of being a communist and just being anti-American being at the top of the excuse list.

 

[I think not]

I remember Union Carbide very well, I too was in school at the time. Here is the problem in my opinion. the reason there was a disaster primarily is because the factory didnt have to comply with strict standards. So they took a short cut that cost thousands of lives.

And the US government let them. No only did it let them, it protected them. So what if they killed thousands of people.

This is one of the reasons you're accused of being a communist and anti-american, I didn't hear a peep from you about the Indian government. Why did they allow this to happen Rev? Why didn't they enforce safety standards?

There are no reasonable measures Rev, someone sticks a finger in an outlet and the company gets slammed with a lawsuit.

Bullshit.

You obviously have no concept of what it means to run a business, so quit while your ahead.

We can't give up Rev, everything that has been accomplished in human history has been a result of the people, not the corporations, not the governments.

Don't worry, I haven't given up. I'm sick and tired of the excuses I hear though...being accused of being a communist and just being anti-American being at the top of the excuse list.

We've been down this road before, no comment.

 

[Reverend Blair]

There are those of you who run around with your pants off and claim to to be nudists, I think not.

Then there are those of us who drop our pants for a reason.

Don't make me take off my belt. ;-)

 

[I think not]

Whatever Rev, you need a vacation.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You're just looking for a reason to drop your pants....

 

[Walter]

Here's my contribution to Throw Back Thursday (TBT).

The Chronicle’s survey of giving by America’s biggest companies found that cash donations in 2015 grew slightly faster than inflation, at about 2 percent compared with the prior year. Financial-services and drug companies were heavily represented at the top of the list.

Stupid corporations.
https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-much-america-s-biggest-com/97%3E?elqTrackId=1b0a658cadc4414086ed7fb06fe83442&elq=f3951ccd2c8d45409e5a8b9ee0571fc3&elqaid=9277&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3244