Opinion of corporations

[Progressive Realist]

Horrible People (they are legally people, after all )

[ChairmanSanchez]

They have a right to exist, and operate, but even so their still HP...

[opebo]

They have a right to exist, and operate, but even so their still HP...

Well they do under the law now, but we need to change that law.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

They have a right to exist, and operate, but even so their still HP...

     This pretty much. They're one of the nastier side effects of the capitalist system, largely due to their ability to shrewdly manipulate the government into assisting them every step of the way.

[shua]

I vote neutral since the either other option would be an absurd level of generalization.

[dead0man]

You might as well ask "opinion of homo sapiens" or "opinion of nature" or "opinion of luck".  Corporations, like humans, nature and luck can be one or the other (or neither or both).

[Californian Tony]

They do what they are created for : making money. They don't, nor should, care about ethics, human dignity or things like that. Don't blame them if the government is too stupid and coward to limit their power and ensure they don't harm the society.

[patrick1]

They do what they are created for : making money. They don't, nor should, care about ethics, human dignity or things like that. Don't blame them if the government is too stupid and coward to limit their power and ensure they don't harm the society.

Yes, they should.  Further, people should exercise their powers as consumers to be informed and ensure that they do abide by ethical standards.  Your argument is as Manichean as those who worship at  the altar of the free and unfettered market- albeit with different suppositions.

[Senator Napoleon]

I wouldn't want to work for one.

[Californian Tony]

They do what they are created for : making money. They don't, nor should, care about ethics, human dignity or things like that. Don't blame them if the government is too stupid and coward to limit their power and ensure they don't harm the society.

Yes, they should.  Further, people should exercise their powers as consumers to be informed and ensure that they do abide by ethical standards.  Your argument is as Manichean as those who worship at  the altar of the free and unfettered market- albeit with different suppositions.

To the contrary, it is mere realism. Corporations are here to make money, that's the very reason of their existence. Why would they do anything else than making money ? Of course people who work at them certainly have ethical/moral standards as everybody, but now we know that people naturally tend to forget their moral standards or "put them aside" when they are at work (look at Eichmann or at Milgram's expericences for proof). I'm not saying a corporation is bad : it is simply amoral. If doing the good will make it gain more money, it will do good. And if doing the evil will make it gain more money, it will do the evil. I fail to see how people could expect other things from them.

And LOL @ the idea that "the consumer" could have any impact on a corporation's behaviour. Sure, a couple of protests or boycott could help convincing a business to marginally change its policies in China, but most of the time, consumers don't really care about ethics either. Otherwise, 90% of corporations would already be bankrupt.

[Communists For McCain]

Rage!!! The ebil EVUL corporations!!!!  Raping our churches and burning our womyns!!!!  Someday you evil greedy babyraping cocksuckers will finally get yours!!!!!!![/cliched generalization]

With my mock post finished I'm going to have to agree with Shua on this one:

I vote neutral since the either other option would be an absurd level of generalization.

[Communists For McCain]

They do what they are created for : making money. They don't, nor should, care about ethics, human dignity or things like that. Don't blame them if the government is too stupid and coward to limit their power and ensure they don't harm the society.

Yes, they should.  Further, people should exercise their powers as consumers to be informed and ensure that they do abide by ethical standards.  Your argument is as Manichean as those who worship at  the altar of the free and unfettered market- albeit with different suppositions.

To the contrary, it is mere realism. Corporations are here to make money, that's the very reason of their existence. Why would they do anything else than making money ? Of course people who work at them certainly have ethical/moral standards as everybody, but now we know that people naturally tend to forget their moral standards or "put them aside" when they are at work (look at Eichmann or at Milgram's expericences for proof). I'm not saying a corporation is bad : it is simply amoral. If doing the good will make it gain more money, it will do good. And if doing the evil will make it gain more money, it will do the evil. I fail to see how people could expect other things from them.

And LOL @ the idea that "the consumer" could have any impact on a corporation's behaviour. Sure, a couple of protests or boycott could help convincing a business to marginally change its policies in China, but most of the time, consumers don't really care about ethics either. Otherwise, 90% of corporations would already be bankrupt.

As much as I disagree with Antonio V's politics he is actually right on the money on corporations.  Corporations, entities created for the sole purpose of making money, are entirely amoral.  Instead of judging the corporations, you should instead be judging the owners and shareholders of said corporations.  Or the people that empower them.  Then again considering the amount of self-reflection (oh yes I went there) it might require, probably not.

[specific_name]

Corporations are in some sense amoral and I do largely agree with Antonio, with regard to the profit motive which when taken as an abstraction is neither moral nor immoral. However, corporations have their origins as arms of the state e.g. the Dutch East India Company, or other private groups that pooled their collective resources. The myth of rugged individualism is especially odd to me, when we consider that the height of capitalist economy has come from the breakdown of family firms in favor of large national and later transnational corporations. In our time they've come to eclipse the power of many states. So, I would not say that corporations ever existed for the public good or that there was any notion of the public good in the liberal sense when joint stock companies first came into existence.

If there is truly one thing that bothers those of us on the left most about corporations, it must be the blatant hypocrisy of supporting corporate personhood when it comes to benefits of such a status. Yet moral culpability is denied when the organization does something abusive or destructive. In those latter cases we say that it is the management, the shareholders or even the customers that hold responsibility. Either corporations are or are not people. They are either collective organizations that facilitate the will of individuals or they are something more than the sum of their parts. You cannot have it both ways.

I contend that they are not people and that the legal manipulations that have granted them any such fictive status in any country is only the result of the subversive influence of monied interests on the political process. It follows that if corporations are not people they cannot be immoral in and of themselves. However, corporations by their nature as facilitators of the profit imperative shelter individuals from judgment and responsibility from the destructive and abusive acts committed while employed by an organization. In much the same manner that the nation state, for centuries, has dressed up all manner of malfeasance and crime as dutiful and honorable when done in the name of the state. The corporation and the state are very much similar in that they are both legal fictions that are truly collectives of individual interest. Nevertheless, they both take advantage of their status as organizations to deflect blame and guilt for the wrongful actions of individuals that act in the name of the organization.

[For Oklahoma]

Overall, they're scumbags. CEOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents, all of the head honchos of the corporations, they're the jerks.

But when you get down to each individual employee...take Starbucks for an example.

Starbucks is a corporation and I hate their CEO Howard Schultz, he's a jerk.

But they're employees are nice people and I couldn't dare call them jerks.

[patrick1]

They do what they are created for : making money. They don't, nor should, care about ethics, human dignity or things like that. Don't blame them if the government is too stupid and coward to limit their power and ensure they don't harm the society.

Yes, they should.  Further, people should exercise their powers as consumers to be informed and ensure that they do abide by ethical standards.  Your argument is as Manichean as those who worship at  the altar of the free and unfettered market- albeit with different suppositions.

To the contrary, it is mere realism. Corporations are here to make money, that's the very reason of their existence. Why would they do anything else than making money ? Of course people who work at them certainly have ethical/moral standards as everybody, but now we know that people naturally tend to forget their moral standards or "put them aside" when they are at work (look at Eichmann or at Milgram's expericences for proof). I'm not saying a corporation is bad : it is simply amoral. If doing the good will make it gain more money, it will do good. And if doing the evil will make it gain more money, it will do the evil. I fail to see how people could expect other things from them.

And LOL @ the idea that "the consumer" could have any impact on a corporation's behaviour. Sure, a couple of protests or boycott could help convincing a business to marginally change its policies in China, but most of the time, consumers don't really care about ethics either. Otherwise, 90% of corporations would already be bankrupt.

Well, yes, corporations are by nature profit seeking entities.  However, ethics violations, scandals and general dishonesty have a negative impact on business.  From the Ford Pinto, to Firestone tires, and the BP oil spill public perception of unethical behavior does have an impact. It takes millions or billions of dollars for recalls and efforts to regain consumer confidence in your product.  Corporations realize this and that is why they have huge marketing and advertising resources to put a good public face on their company. Also, all corporations are not created equal and many do have good values/mission statements and abide by their standards.

Yes, many consumers do not care about ethics and simply make decisions based on cost.  However, this also speaks to those people's general amoral attitude toward these issues. So it doesnt make sense to me to vilify corporations with a broad brush, but not also be as equally as critical to individual behavior.  I don't agree with a reflexive CORPORATIONS BAD outlook.  This just does not take into account any nuance.  Likewise, government is not the savior to shield us from the big bad corporations because it can be equally flawed.  Government also isn't the leviathan that some make it out to be.  If this makes me a moderate hero on this- so be it.

[white trash heroes]

Neutral. (Not a child)

[Brandon H]

You might as well ask "opinion of homo sapiens" or "opinion of nature" or "opinion of luck".  Corporations, like humans, nature and luck can be one or the other (or neither or both).

Agree. There are some good ones and some bad ones. A better question would be opinion of corporate welfare and corporations who use government policies to maintain a monopoly.

[phk]

Neutral. (Not a child)

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Drive my red civic
On Michelene fat black tires
Exxon fills my tank.

Get Whataburger lunch
Wearing out my Reebok shoes
Reading Penguin book

Typing on Toshiba
Notebook loves Microsoft
Corporations rule!

[Gustaf]

I like to mock corporate bullsh**t and enjoy The Office just as much as the next man, but corporations actually provide us with a lot of good.

[opebo]

The fact that they are 'bad' is really just due to the misapprehension that they are 'private'.  If we understood them for what they are - arms of the State - they could be utilized a lot more effectively.  As it is now they only benefit the aristocracy who control them.

[Gustaf]

The fact that they are 'bad' is really just due to the misapprehension that they are 'private'.  If we understood them for what they are - arms of the State - they could be utilized a lot more effectively.  As it is now they only benefit the aristocracy who control them.

That is so wrong it is actually amusing. The truth, of course, is the exact reverse.

[Xandal]

Any large institution is corrupt by nature and corporate Capitalism is not natural. If you look at organic economies they are made up of small and medium size businesses and localized economies.

While Distributism may sound like socialism it would return us to a true free market.
Corporations should be stripped of their rights of personhood and we need to reinforce antitrust legislation to break up corporate and financial monopolies. Distributism is the only real alternative to the monopoly based economic systems of capitalism and socialism.

[Sibboleth]

You know, 'corporation' was the old name for a local authority in Britain (and in certain colonies, like Ireland) and I've spent much too much of the past three years looking at local government documents...

[Salaz]

Big Coroporations suck about as much as big Government.