Corporation Watch

[Edric O]

Ever wanted to know what corporations do with your money? Now is your chance to find out:

http://www.idealswork.com/

This is an excellent site. It allows you to compare the social and environmental impact of many different corporations, so you know more about the people you're buying from. You can boycott the worst corporations and support the not-so-bad ones.

We cannot rid ourselves from under the corporate boot just yet, but at least we can limit their impact on our world. Power to the people!

[Caid Ivik]

Corporations doing something with my money? Well, money itself belong to national bank, I am carrier of their value. If I buy something from a corporation, it's an equal change, I receive their product and paid cash will be theirs. OK, we have banks, which have my money. But I don't have to store money in a bank; I put it there because I am too lazy to care for them, so I give responsibility over them to experts.

About that site, it seems to be a newest form of advertisment.

[Edric O]

Corporations doing something with my money? Well, money itself belong to national bank, I am carrier of their value. If I buy something from a corporation, it's an equal change, I receive their product and paid cash will be theirs. OK, we have banks, which have my money. But I don't have to store money in a bank; I put it there because I am too lazy to care for them, so I give responsibility over them to experts.

Okay, and your point is...?

As for your comment about the site, why am I not surprised that a right-winger doesn't like it when someone exposes the dark side of corporations? ::)

But come to think of it, I'm not sure if this topic belongs in PRP... Mods, feel free to move it to General if you wish. (after all, this is not meant to be a political debate - and hopefully it won't go off-topic)

[Caid Ivik]

Darker side of companies? If you want, I can tell you many corruptional scandals which were in our government last years and media have seen nothing about them, if you want. I don't live in an illusion. But this side doesn't show you what is bad, it is for to see what is the least bad. So it is an advertisment, de facto positive.

[Edric O]

Yes, you're right.

So...?

[SurlyPIG]

Edric, despite what I'm sure you've been told, very few corporations are like Enron or tobacco companies.

[Edric O]

I doubt that anyone is "being told" anything bad about corporations. After all, the corporations own the media, so they have a cvasi-monopoly on propaganda.

As for myself, you should learn that part of the process of becoming a communist is rejecting the "answers" that you have been spoon fed, and beginning to think for yourself. Most communists (including myself) formed their own ideas first, and then realized they were in fact communists after they started reading some Marx or Engels or Rosa Luxembourg or Lenin or Trotsky...

But we're going off-topic. Doesn't anyone have any actual comments about the site?

[zamboe]

Ever wanted to know what corporations do with your money? Now is your chance to find out:

"my money".....so what I buy is still "their" stuff ?.....

This is an excellent site. It allows you to compare the social and environmental impact of many different corporations, so you know more about the people you're buying from. You can boycott the worst corporations and support the not-so-bad ones.

We cannot rid ourselves from under the corporate boot just yet, but at least we can limit their impact on our world. Power to the people!

Why should I believe them ?, what makes them right ?

Instead of blind believing arguments that somehow are similar to your own ideas, try to focus on the merit of each argument, then you'll change the word "excellent" to a complete different one.

Power to the people?, what for ? no anarchy needed.

[Edric O]

This goes both ways, zamboe: Instead of blindly dismissing arguments which do not agree with your own ideas, you should take the time to evaluate their merits.

As for corporations not using "your money" - so are you saying that you have nothing against buying things from a corporation that uses child labour, for example?

And if you dislike the phrase "power to the people", then let me introduce you to a certain Augusto Pinochet. He also hated the idea of the people holding the power. I'm sure you heard of him...

[zamboe]

This goes both ways, zamboe: Instead of blindly dismissing arguments which do not agree with your own ideas, you should take the time to evaluate their merits.

I am glad you take my words, so I hope now you'll be objective and remake your opinion of that website.

As for corporations not using "your money" - so are you saying that you have nothing against buying things from a corporation that uses child labour, for example?

This is merely semantics, at the time I bought something is no longer my money. Or for example an employeer might still think that the salary given to an employee is still a company's money and therefore might make rules for employees to spend it. Sound pretty ridiculous to me.

Child labour is a complete different thing. I am not in a position to investigate every process that a company has to produce some goods, let alone blind believing in some left wing non government information source.

And if you dislike the phrase "power to the people", then let me introduce you to a certain Augusto Pinochet. He also hated the idea of the people holding the power. I'm sure you heard of him.

Of course I know about Pinochet. But this a complete different subject. The context for you to say Power to the people means power to the communist, which is something I am deeply against.

[SurlyPIG]

I doubt that anyone is "being told" anything bad about corporations. After all, the corporations own the media, so they have a cvasi-monopoly on propaganda.

Don't be absurd Edric. You must have a ridiculous definition of "corporations". You speak of them as if they are a single entity bent on ruling the world, and would never say anything negative about each other (hah!). I have a game for you. Think of the 25 closest businesses to where you live. Of those, how many of them are local small businesses, and how many are actually chained corporations? And of those, how many are franchise-based as opposed to owned by a single body? Good capitalism isn't about mergers and foreign labour and giant companies, it's about getting your dry-cleaning done buy a guy so friendly you want to take him home, it's about getting a relaxing massage from a small Japanese woman, and it's about eating a slice of veggi from the pizza place down the street run by an Italian guy that's so hairy it looks like he's wearing a sweater.

As for myself, you should learn that part of the process of becoming a communist is rejecting the "answers" that you have been spoon fed, and beginning to think for yourself. Most communists (including myself) formed their own ideas first, and then realized they were in fact communists after they started reading some Marx or Engels or Rosa Luxembourg or Lenin or Trotsky...

So you're saying your ideals fell EXACTLY in line with every communist there ever was? Tell me, did you think that religious services should be publicly funded before, or after you became a communist?

But we're going off-topic. Doesn't anyone have any actual comments about the site?

You know, I actually liked what I was seeing up until the point where it told me I should be fighting global warming with my spending. ::) And you already know what I think of that theory...

[Edric O]

zamboe:

First of all, no one is asking you to believe anything. I gave you a link to a website. Whether you agree or not with that website is your own business.

But you should have at least taken the time to read their main page before lashing out against them. Had you done that, you would have noticed a link to a page that explains how they give their ratings to companies.

And "power to the people" means just that: power to the people. A communist who puts his own personal interests before the interests of the people is not a communist.

Ace:

Don't be absurd Edric. You must have a ridiculous definition of "corporations". You speak of them as if they are a single entity bent on ruling the world, and would never say anything negative about each other (hah!).

No, Ace, I do not. It's obvious that each corporation tries to make itself look good and at the same time tries to make its competition look bad. But it's also obvious that all corporations try to make capitalism look good and socialism look bad, and that they work together whenever they have a common foe (such as workers' rights organizations).

I have a game for you. Think of the 25 closest businesses to where you live. Of those, how many of them are local small businesses, and how many are actually chained corporations? And of those, how many are franchise-based as opposed to owned by a single body? Good capitalism isn't about mergers and foreign labour and giant companies, it's about getting your dry-cleaning done buy a guy so friendly you want to take him home, it's about getting a relaxing massage from a small Japanese woman, and it's about eating a slice of veggi from the pizza place down the street run by an Italian guy that's so hairy it looks like he's wearing a sweater.

Heh, that's a nice vision of "good capitalism" you have there. Unfortunetaly, things don't work that way, and they never did. Dry-cleaners, masseurs and small-time pizza makers are a tiny, utterly insignificant part of the economy. They might be more visible to you because they are your neigbors, but they play no role whatsoever in the large picture. They don't produce anything even slightly important. They only provide services that you could easily do without.

Big business is where the big money are, and it's big business that controls all the important sectors of the economy.

And by the way, I also have a game for you: Take a look around the room you're in right now, and tell me how many of the objects you see around you were not made by a corporation.

So you're saying your ideals fell EXACTLY in line with every communist there ever was? Tell me, did you think that religious services should be publicly funded before, or after you became a communist?

LOL, of course not! As a matter of fact, such a thing would be logically impossible, since you'd have a very hard time finding two communists that completely agree with each other. Like I said, we tend to have very independent minds. So much so that it's creating real problems for our movement, because there are so many different communist factions.

As for religious services, I always thought they should be publicly funded. It's common sense.

You know, I actually liked what I was seeing up until the point where it told me I should be fighting global warming with my spending. ::) And you already know what I think of that theory...

Okay then, you should fight pollution with your spending. Is that better?

[SurlyPIG]

No, Ace, I do not. It's obvious that each corporation tries to make itself look good and at the same time tries to make its competition look bad. But it's also obvious that all corporations try to make capitalism look good and socialism look bad, and that they work together whenever they have a common foe (such as workers' rights organizations).

And worker's rights organizations have a common foe in overly-demanding corporations. A good economy is balanced in all ways. I know just as many ways that workers exploit their employers. An example; road workers in my city belong to a union, and the deals they've cut allow them to be 20-35% less efficient than their counterparts of neighbouring cities. They're building an (above-ground) train station near where I live and they've been at it for four years so far, and for a frame of comparison, in the event of an earthquake, the entire LA freeway system could be rebuilt in three months. Oh, I remember another good one. The traffic lights outside my gym were malfunctioning this summer. Instead of a long light for a busy road one way, opposing a smaller road opposite a parking lot entrance, it was flashing red for eight days. The people at the gym called it in as soon as it started happening, and the city union waited until Canada Day (a stat. holiday) to fix it. Why you ask? Because on statutory holidays, workers make twice as much money. In the eight days that the lights were broken, there were two accidents, and this was in a place where there hadn't been any for many months before. Thankfully neither was fatal but a woman involved in the second lost most of the use of her legs. Doesn't it make you feel good about unions? A couple hundred dollars was likely the cause of why someone is going to be in a wheelchair for at least a few years. And it couldn't have happened without an overpowered union!

Heh, that's a nice vision of "good capitalism" you have there. Unfortunetaly, things don't work that way, and they never did. Dry-cleaners, masseurs and small-time pizza makers are a tiny, utterly insignificant part of the economy. They might be more visible to you because they are your neigbors, but they play no role whatsoever in the large picture. They don't produce anything even slightly important. They only provide services that you could easily do without.

So you see clothing, your health, and food as something you could "easily do without?"

And by the way, I also have a game for you: Take a look around the room you're in right now, and tell me how many of the objects you see around you were not made by a corporation.

Everything I see started with an individuals idea. I am able to be responding to this because of Edison's light bulb. A few minutes ago I answered a call on Bell's telephone. There's a book from my English class on my desk; Shakespeare's Hamlet. And the creators of all of these things recieved proper dues for their troubles (well, except for Shakespeare of course).

Okay then, you should fight pollution with your spending. Is that better?

Yes, but that isn't what the site said ;). I have trouble respecting an organization that buys into such a ludicrous assumption. None of their patrons are going to do a thing to "fight" global warming unless they can control the sun, somehow...

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Corporations don't even give a damn about the people.

The only thing that they care is about the wallet they are carrying and the power that they possess.

And like Edric said, they ALWAYS try to make Communism/Socialism look bad and tries to convince with their 'fake light side' that Capitalism and Corporations care about the population of earth, if you have MONEY that is.

So tell me, what good brings a corporations aside the fact that they produce items for 'humanity' ?

[Caid Ivik]

"Heh, that's a nice vision of "good capitalism" you have there. Unfortunetaly, things don't work that way, and they never did. Dry-cleaners, masseurs and small-time pizza makers are a tiny, utterly insignificant part of the economy. They might be more visible to you because they are your neigbors, but they play no role whatsoever in the large picture. They don't produce anything even slightly important. They only provide services that you could easily do without."

This is called a "middle class", "bourgeoise" or "intelligence" in marxistic terminology. Every such capitalist has tiny power, but in fact, such small shops and services form more than 3/4 of GDP. I can go to a cafe which is owned by one person and say that such good strudle I wouldn't buy anywhere else!

[ordos45]

*nods* I think the figure the teacher gave us in my small business course was roughly 80% or so of US Businesses. I forget the percentage of our GDP, but it was pretty high.

Okay just editting to quote my book for that course:

More than 6.5 million small businesses contribute billions of dollars every year to the United States economy. These small companies employ more workers than all of the country's large corporations combined.

South-Western, Entrepeneurship, Ideas in Action.

Cynthia L. Greene

Copyright 2000

[Sneakgab]

Employers exploiting employees with their cash obsessed group? vice-versa too?

That's capitalism for you... groups obsessed with trying to get money through minimal contribution to society

I imagine that is exactly why Edrico prefers communism. He does not simply despise companies, he despises any group or person whose only goal/s are/is making as much money as possible wihout minimal contribution to society (as they try to minimalize the amount of work they do)

Besides, though some workers definetely take advantage of the idea of a union, it is not actually possible for them to ''exploit'' their employees because their employees usually do not pay them as much as the value of their work or else they could not make a profit ie: company asks for x value amount of work, and gives back < than amount of money... this is obviously not fair. The only way a worker could exploit his employer would be to take advantage of any generosity that employer showed. (I imagine that such an indivual would also be despised by Edrico)

Despite all this though, I'm not neccesarily saying I support communism, though I'm not particularly against it either

BTW: To me being a right-winger or a conservative, simply mean considering things carefully before going: YAY, it's a liberal left-wing idea and all right wingers are sheep!. Not that I think left-wingers act as such (excluding people who can't think for themselves of course). Amusingly enough, I imagine that for many people being a left-winger simply means not being thought of as a hippie (j/k, but you get the idea),madman,e.t.c or as a stupid protester (of the sheep variety) by right-wingers...

Which is why we all should probably discard the wrappings of right/left winging as our political indicator because both of the names of these wingers seem to bring up so much connotations and official political meanings that many people who call themselves wingers don't actually agree by.

[Edric O]

Sneakgab makes very good points. And he's right about me and my principles. I despise exploitation of any kind. But under a capitalist system, it is not possible for a worker to "exploit" his employer. On the other hand, even the most generous employer is forced to exploit his workers, because otherwise his company wouldn't make any profit and he would go out of business. Profit is the difference in value between what the workers produce and the money they get for it. In order for profit to be a positive number, the workers must be paid less than they deserve.

Ace tries to give examples of unions "abusing their power", but the fact is that the unions are only trying to make things more fair for the workers, by ensuring that their wages are closer to the real value of their work. Of course that things don't work properly in capitalism when workers demand their rights. Capitalism is designed to exploit workers. If the unions prevent that exploitation (at least partially), then capitalism doesn't work as it was supposed to. Only a system which is NOT designed to exploit workers (such as socialism and communism) can work properly when the workers get a fair deal.

So you see clothing, your health, and food as something you could "easily do without?"

No, I see dry cleaning, massage and pizza as something I could easily do without. Don't turn a particular statement into a general one.

Everything I see started with an individuals idea. I am able to be responding to this because of Edison's light bulb. A few minutes ago I answered a call on Bell's telephone. There's a book from my English class on my desk; Shakespeare's Hamlet. And the creators of all of these things recieved proper dues for their troubles (well, except for Shakespeare of course).

How exactly can a new type of product NOT start with an individual's idea?

And yes, all those people received proper dues for their troubles, and then some. Good ideas should always be rewarded, but not to the point where someone can gain an immense fortune from just one lucky thought. An idea is a one-time event, therefore you should receive a one-time reward for it.

And finally, there's the claim made by Caid and Ordos45 that small businesses make up a large portion of the economy. If that is so, then take a look around you and tell me: How many of the objects you see were made by corporations and how many by small businesses?

Corporations have a huge influence in our life and they produce a huge part of the things we buy. If they control only a small part of the economy, where on Earth do they get all their money from?

[Wolf]

Woohoo, Sneakgab! You're like me, one of those "honest" conservatives/moderates!

But, yeah, you've got a point about capitalsim. The goal of capitalism, and capitalists will admit this with a smile (reminds me of my ex-girlfriend, whom i DO NOT like, was a hardcore-to-the-bone-you'll-have-to-pull-my-dollar-from-my-cold-dead-hand-Capitalist and a HUGE fan of Ayn Rand, who is one of the most evil people to ever put pen to paper), is to make MAXIMUM profit with MINIMAL loss.

Please note, the people do not factor into this. Since society is made up of the people and only the people, capitalism does not directly benefit society. However, I will point out that this fierce competition and efficiency has created many inventions and products that have ENHANCED the average standard of living -- if you can pay for it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Read Ralph Nader's book, Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender. He makes many good points and insights. One of them being "the problem with capitalist democracies is that they have yet to grant the dollar suffrage" (or something to that effect).

Granted, I think the idea of a limited capitalsim (China and Hong Kong's odd association with each other) evolving into a limited socialism/democracy evolving further into a total socialist democracy and then further evolving into pure communism (Gene Roddenberry, you bandit, you) is the most appropriate, and healthy, course of action for mankind. It gives humanity time to adapt, which is good.

For right now, we do the best we can with what we have. Personally, I think that the privitization of social services is an excellent idea. Having the government make a social service the responsibility of a corporation is a good way to get things done. What if we made auto companies responsible for pollution? I wonder, I wonder.

A recent thought I had on the technological development due to capitalist competetion: You will only develop new technology as far as the corporation feels it can make the most profit with. They don't go all the way, it isn't cost-effective.

The REAL big problem with capitalism is its central concept. Directly, it does not deal with the needs of society. A society is made up of the people and the people only, not dollars. Naturually, as people, we DO care about society. We are it, it is us. We all coexist in one big organism called humanity. Capitalism has no provisions for this, and thus, mistakes happen. Though, I maintain that capitalism, while flawed in its concept dealing with people, is the most cost-effective and efficient means of managing resources. That is what it's designed to do.

(shrugs) Mankind's priorites have to change, and they will. I mean, we've seen it in history. From polytheism, to monotheism, to existentialism. From priests, to kings, to lords, to dictators, to presidents. People change. "Human nature" is what we make it, I think.

Anyway, I'm sorry, this is my second rambling-because-he's-dead-tired-and-may-not-even-be-coherent-God-I-am-so-tired post tonight. I gotta get some rest and stop alleviating boredom with forums.

[SurlyPIG]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the natural condition of humanity is to get the most with the least. That's why we're so successful as a species. It's a basic instinct. It comes with the opposable thumbs. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of progress occurred in the system that allows for the exercise of this instinct. "True" communism wouldn't work unless the nature of this instinct were to change, somehow, or unless it appeased a stronger instinct. One such example is the instinct of self-preservation; fear of death. That's why the Soviets were so successful and why red China continues to grow.

[Edric O]

Actually, Ace, the vast majority of progress (and the vast majority of human history) occured under slavery-based societies or under feudalism. Capitalism has barely existed for a few hundred years. That's why the argument that "capitalism is human nature" is quite ridiculous. If capitalism is human nature, then how come we lived for thousands of years without it?

The "natural order of capitalism" is just a modern version of the "divine right of kings". The ruling class tries to legitimize itself by appealing to a higher authority (such as God or nature).

Wolfwiz, I agree with a lot of what you said. But there are still some points I want to make:

First of all, capitalism does not make efficient use of resources. You just need to look at the world to see that. We could grow enough food to feed over 10 billion people, yet out of our current population of 6 billion, one billion people are suffering from hunger. Enourmous amounts of resources are wasted or spent on trivial things (think Las Vegas), when they could be used to save millions of lives, and give millions more people decent living conditions. Capitalism is a wasteful and irrational system of resource management.

Capitalism is efficient at ensuring the high quality of products, not at making use of resources. However, the high quality provided by capitalism is usually only available to the rich, and it comes at a too great cost in human lives.

Second, I'd like to point out that privatizing social services is an extremely bad idea. Corporations are good at making profits. They only "get things done" if getting things done is profitable. And helping people is definately not profitable.

Besides, the main purpose of social services is to grant basic living standards to those who are too poor to afford them. If you make social services only available for a price, that pretty much defeats the whole point of having them in the first place (not to mention taking us one step back towards the 19th century).

[zamboe]

Profit is the difference in value between what the workers produce and the money they get for it. In order for profit to be a positive number, the workers must be paid less than they deserve.

How about employee's profit (savings) = salary - expenses.

Edrico's logic (red logic) cannot accept a winner-winner a agreement, under a communist logic (which is only base on social class fight) always there has to be a winner and a looser.

Under that logic (edrico's), then most employees that save $$ after expenses should have their wages reduced, they don't desever that much !

Statments like that are the kind of.... easy come, easy go.

[Wolf]

Hmmm, I guess I should have said that capitalism is the most efficient way to make money. And, about privitization, I was not saying that it was the BEST idea, I was saying that it's a good first step if you want to evolve society on the way to socialism. It's not a perfect solution, but at least it gets things done.

I mean, what would YOU propose we do with the current situation? We have capitalsim, and it looks like that's what we're going to get for the next 100 years or so. So, if you want to improve the environment and make life better for all people, how would you propose we do that -- with capitalism? I think privitization is one solution, the other is making the government pick up the tab, which, we know, is difficult.

[Edric O]

How about employee's profit (savings) = salary - expenses.

Edrico's logic (red logic) cannot accept a winner-winner a agreement, under a communist logic (which is only base on social class fight) always there has to be a winner and a looser.

Under that logic (edrico's), then most employees that save $$ after expenses should have their wages reduced, they don't desever that much!

I don't think I've ever seen a strawman as ridiculous as this one, zamboe. You must be arguing against an imaginary opponent, because I've never said any of those things you lash out against. I suggest you get rid of your prejudice and take a look at what I'm actually saying.

First of all, I was talking about company profit, which is the difference in value between what the workers produce and the money they get for it. In order for this profit to be a positive number, the workers must be paid less than they deserve. That is what we call "capitalist exploitation".

Where the hell did you get the absurd idea that it has anything to do with an employee's savings? Employees make a "profit" from their own work. Company owners make a profit from other people's work. That's a huge difference.

Second of all, the fact is that a winner-winner situation is EXACTLY what we communists want, and it is exactly what socialism and communism offer. The winner-loser situation is what capitalism offers. In capitalism, the owners are the winners and the workers are the losers. And this reality won't go away if you close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

If you knew anything about communism, you'd know that our goal is to end the class struggle, and to get rid of social classes.

"Red logic" is that wages should represent the real value of your work and the products you make, and that no person has the right to exploit another.

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

There's something I don't understand... how is privatization supposed to lead to socialism? In fact, privatization takes us in the opposite direction - towards more right-wing capitalism. Privatization takes away power from the people (or, to be more exact, from the representatives of the people) and puts it in the hands of a tiny minority of extremely rich billionaires.

If you want a slow and gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism, then you need to give the people more and more democratic power over the government, and at the same time give the government more and more power over the economy, taking it away from corporations. Each of these processes is useless without the other: If the government controls the economy but the people don't have enough control over the government, you end up with an oppressive state dictatorship. If the people have full control over the government but the government is powerless and corporations are all-powerful, then you end up with an oppressive corporate dictatorship.