No, there's nothing good about corporations. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing.
I had a weird conversation the other day and reading about the causes of the global food crisis (short-term and long-term) has peaked my interest in posting about it.
It wasn't actually a conversation, more of a ghost of one. What was funny was that a close friend of mine was laughing at someone's use of terms like "giant mega corporations" and referring to them as a bad thing. My friend laughed as if to say, "this is just too silly, I can't believe he thinks this!". With a nudge and a grin I ask, "why are you laughing? You know I feel the same way!". He was completely disbelieving, so I said, "yeah I don't think there's a single good thing about corporations." He laughed again, half exasperated and half amused.
Then he starts in, "what about cheap prices?!". Two of them were on me now. "What about your laptop? What about the clothes you're wearing? What about...". We ended the argument before it could begin because we had work to do, so any grumbling I do now may misrepresent their actual feelings.
All the same I have to say, I seriously do not believe that just having cheap goods is any great payoff for all of the problems corporations cause.
First and foremost, a corporation is by definition an entity to make a profit, so by its very nature, it has no concern for human lives, and the people at the top seldom do either. That's why they're at the top. If they were concerned, the corporation wouldn't be successful.
Lets use agricultural corporations as an example. In many cases they move in, take over land with or without proper compensation for the subsistence farmers previously owning the land, they use techniques that are devastating to the environment, the employees, and the end consumer in order to make products more quickly, in order to have more of them, in order for them to be cheaper, in order to put smaller companies out of business, in order to make the most profit and dominate the industry. They can afford machinery which means they can employ less people which means less people in the town are employed.
Is that really worth the price of cheap goods for those of us in wealthy countries? Perhaps if we didn't buy so much stuff all the time, or if the things we bought weren't rife with planned obsolescence, low quality manufacturing by sweatshop labor, and weren't goods made for a throw-away culture (you know, goods that actually LAST?), then maybe we wouldn't NEED goods at the low cost that the corporations so generously provide to us.
Frankly, I'd rather pay more for something that won't break in a year, and didn't screw up the local ecosystem or the local economy, and didn't further impoverish third world nations.
We have to ask, what's the REAL cost of this product? It's much higher than it looks.
It wasn't actually a conversation, more of a ghost of one. What was funny was that a close friend of mine was laughing at someone's use of terms like "giant mega corporations" and referring to them as a bad thing. My friend laughed as if to say, "this is just too silly, I can't believe he thinks this!". With a nudge and a grin I ask, "why are you laughing? You know I feel the same way!". He was completely disbelieving, so I said, "yeah I don't think there's a single good thing about corporations." He laughed again, half exasperated and half amused.
Then he starts in, "what about cheap prices?!". Two of them were on me now. "What about your laptop? What about the clothes you're wearing? What about...". We ended the argument before it could begin because we had work to do, so any grumbling I do now may misrepresent their actual feelings.
All the same I have to say, I seriously do not believe that just having cheap goods is any great payoff for all of the problems corporations cause.
First and foremost, a corporation is by definition an entity to make a profit, so by its very nature, it has no concern for human lives, and the people at the top seldom do either. That's why they're at the top. If they were concerned, the corporation wouldn't be successful.
Lets use agricultural corporations as an example. In many cases they move in, take over land with or without proper compensation for the subsistence farmers previously owning the land, they use techniques that are devastating to the environment, the employees, and the end consumer in order to make products more quickly, in order to have more of them, in order for them to be cheaper, in order to put smaller companies out of business, in order to make the most profit and dominate the industry. They can afford machinery which means they can employ less people which means less people in the town are employed.
Is that really worth the price of cheap goods for those of us in wealthy countries? Perhaps if we didn't buy so much stuff all the time, or if the things we bought weren't rife with planned obsolescence, low quality manufacturing by sweatshop labor, and weren't goods made for a throw-away culture (you know, goods that actually LAST?), then maybe we wouldn't NEED goods at the low cost that the corporations so generously provide to us.
Frankly, I'd rather pay more for something that won't break in a year, and didn't screw up the local ecosystem or the local economy, and didn't further impoverish third world nations.
We have to ask, what's the REAL cost of this product? It's much higher than it looks.
Posts
2 Responses to "No, there's nothing good about corporations. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing."
You said: "As long as there is competition, the consumers can find a better price/product and the producers (workers) can find better wages/jobs". I agree in theory, but how do we define "better"? Is minimum wage better than slavery? And its true that more competition means more options, but is the "best" detergent really the best we can do? Why is it that I still can't find tampons that don't have bleach in them? Largely the companies that succeed, even with a lot of competition, are not giving us any real choices. Do I want All, Tide, or Wisk? Who cares?
"However the problem with capitalism is that people are lazy and the problem with Socialism is that people are greedy. Then again capitalism deals with lazy people better than socialism deals with greedy people, at least so it seems to me."
I think I'd have to get your motivations behind these to respond but I'll try anyway. The problem with people who are lazy in Capitalism is that they can't survive. The laziness of people often comes up in this conversation, I'm not sure why. Lazy to me doesn't translate as the default human state of being so much as a reaction to boredom. The way society is set up now is lacking in stimulation or nurturing supports. It's HARD to live the way we do. Why would anyone want to do a thankless job? I think if everyone could do what they want in the world, they would be able to find fulfillment in something, and we wouldn't have an issue with people who don't "contribute to society".
While I agree there's a question in Socialism phrased basically, "what about people who want to accumulate more stuff even though they have everything they need to survive and be happy?". I don't think greed is an evolutionary human characteristic (if it is at all) that can't be overcome when surrounded by certain cultural narratives, such as being happy with what you have. And this isn't to say that in a socialist society we couldn't have things that we want. Perhaps people share yachts and use them when they want to. There certainly isn't a limitation saying I can only have what I need to survive and no fun like Playstations - there would be a lot of room for that if we wanted it.
Great thoughts Finney, thanks for the challenge.
Post a Comment