Anti-corporatism is a necessary condition to the success of anti-corporate digital activism. The reason is self-evident. And last Friday, April 16, 2010, the U.S. federal government added some heat to the flames of anti-corporatism.
Whether or not the fraud charges filed by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) against Goldman Sachs have any merit is immaterial to the issue I’m presenting here. Because the issue I’m presenting here is not the guilt or innocence of that corporation in the matter about to be adjudicated or, more likely, negotiated. The issue that I’m presenting here is that of government-generated anti-corporatism, designed for political reasons.
The announcement of this charge, at this time, can appear to be a politically-motivated and opportunistic tactic. The SEC has, according to the Wall Street Journal, been working on this case for 18 months and just now, days before the U.S. Senate takes up debate on a financial reform bill, decides to announce its charges against Goldman Sachs. This timing seems just a little too coincidental to me.
But coincidental or not, in passing any financial reform, the government must attempt to feed the flames of anti-corporatism. Not doing so would not help their case to pass such legislation. And with a recent Pew Research Center survey saying that only 22% of Americans trust their federal government, the people on Capitol Hill will need any help they can get in progressing their less-than-business-friendly agendas.
Announcing the Goldman Sachs charges at any time will certainly contribute to anti-corporate sentiment. But by doing so now, in conjunction with the opening of a legislative debate on financial reform, this action would seem to be more effective in generating anti-corporate sentiment than waiting for a time when Congress is debating, say, some overarching foreign policy issue, unrelated to business.
What does this mean for corporations in general? Well, many things. But from the perspective of this blog, that of analyzing “irregular competitors,” it means that currently corporations will need to be even more on guard for instances of digital activism against their brands and company. NGOs and activists will recognize that now is a time of “hotter than normal” anti-corporatism. They may see this current event as an “opportunity” and adjust plans for their future online protests accordingly; that is to say, they may perform these online protests sooner than later.
Just another “fringe benefit” from the folks in the District of Columbia.
