Although many have called it an “anti-business” organization (among them Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who characterizes it as such in the second paragraph of the Introduction to his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”), I have been reluctant to categorize Greenpeace in this way. I have been reluctant to do so, that is, until today.
The reason for my reluctance is I haven’t actually seen a statement from them saying that they are anti-business. Yes, many have intimated that Greenpeace is anti-business, but that’s their opinion. (And if you follow Greenpeace’s actions, you’d be hard pressed to regard them as pro-business.) If you read this blog regularly, or have read any of my books, you know that I prefer to have a lot more foundation for my conclusions than just the opinions of others. I saw that foundation today.
In an October 19, 2011 Greenpeace blog post titled “Greenpeace Supports Occupy Wall Street Peaceful Protests,” by Mr. Phil Radford, the executive director of Greenpeace USA, he states that his organization stands behind the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Although OWS has no stated objectives, it seems clear that the OWS is clearly anti-business or anti-corporate and, perhaps in a larger sense, even anti-capitalist. In fact in his post Mr. Radford says:
What I hear are people – first Americans and now across the globe – saying to multinational corporations: “You’re paying out bonuses while jobs are an endangered species. You’ve taken the American Dream – for the first time in generations might leave our kids a worse life and a worse world to live in. You own the courts and have corrupted our Congress, so we’re here at your doorstep.”
Let’s set aside that the paragraph is poorly written as well as the fact that his assertions are a matter of opinion and therefore debatable. He offers no facts. Still it’s clear that the sentiments he expresses in that paragraph are anti-business, and they set the theme for his entire post.
But I thought Greenpeace was supposed to be an environmental organization. Why are they weakening their position as “environmental experts” and throwing in with the anti-business crowd?
Is this a “Duh?” moment? Are you thinking me “slow on the uptake.” No, it’s not a “Duh” moment. Yes, there was gambling going on at Rick’s Café Americain.
Of course I’ve suspected that Greenpeace are “anti-business wolves in environmentalist sheeps clothing,” but before saying so, I wanted to wait until they admitted it.
Now, they have.
I was just listening to the Jackson Browne song “Lives in the Balance” while working on some writing about anti-corporatism. How ironic that that song came on the radio at that particular time. The notion of “Who’s really at fault here?,” popped into my mind upon hearing the anti-corporate lyrics:
“They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us everything from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are.”
Who’s really at fault here?
The salesmen (and women, of course) in the “shadows” or the customer?
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.
In my previous post, “Living on a Meme,” I discussed a San Francisco Chronicle article entitled “Anti-corporate vs. Anti-government Anger: Who to Trust?” Written by psychologist Dr. Jim Taylor, the article discusses many reasons why he thinks people are angry at large corporations. What does he say about the anti-government reasons? Well, there aren’t as many of those given. If you haven’t read my Part 1 of Living on a Meme, you may do so by clicking here. Or if you would like to read the article by Dr. Jim, you may click here.
What you and I are discussing here in “Living on a Meme” is, specifically, how Dr. Jim, as an example of a meme writer in the “anti” article, not only contradicts his own views in that article, but also uses unsubstantiated claims, claims that just keep floating around in the popular culture, to put forth his “argument.” And, generally, what you and I are discussing here is how articles, like Dr. Jim’s “anti” article that is based on meme, can further generate and propagate misinformation, damaging the common “reality” that we must all share.
A few weeks ago, I was attracted to an article turned up by one of my Google Alerts. This article link has been sitting in my “Things to Write About” folder. That is until today.
On March 8, 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle posted an article titled “Anti-corporate vs. Anti-government Anger: Who to Trust?,” written by Dr. Jim Taylor, a psychologist and author. The first line of this article reads: “This post is not a partisan polemic intended to attack those who hold different views than I.” I smiled when I read that line because when someone prefaces an article in this manner, a polemic is often what that article turns out to be. Polemic it is. And Dr. Jim puts forth his opinion. That’s fine. I don’t happen to agree with his opinion, to which he is most certainly entitled. But his opinion is not to what I object. What I object to in this particular article is the way he constructs the argument and presents the information that expresses his opinion. He constructs his argument and presents information in a way that not only contradicts his own views, but also in a way that generates and propagates unsupported meme, which can damage the “reality” that we must all share. Let me explain.
In a recent Guardian article entitled “The Trouble with Trusting Complex Science,” an apparently self-avowed anti-corporatist writer (“despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts . . .” (a quote from the 10th paragraph of the article cited)) George Monbiot, discusses the frustration of dealing in facts when debating the climate change controversy. He describes how efforts to convince climate change disbelievers are often frustrated in spite of the facts presented. As a fan of facts, I can feel George’s frustration, although he and I may be on opposite sides of the climate change issue.
But the issue of climate change aside, what I want to comment on is his belief in truth and facts to make an argument. He and I are in sync on that and if you read this blog regularly you will understand what I mean.
From the theme of his article, it appears that George is very interested in the proper portrayal of reality, but yet he lets that reality take a bit of a walk in the third paragraph of an article that discusses journalistic integrity. In referring to journalistic castigations of climate scientists as an “attack on climate scientists” and as a “widening to an all-out war on science,” George makes a bit of an attack himself. Not on climate scientists, mind you, but he makes an attack on reality. He says in the third paragraph:
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company – and precious few journalists – with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world.
Just so you know and I understand, I had to look up “anoraks.” We here in the U.S. would call that a parka. But that, of course, isn’t what troubles me.
What troubles me is that for an apparent champion of the truth, George makes a blanket, unsupported statement about the paucity of science degrees held by journalists and does so without reference to a source. He pins his argument, that climate change science is being “poo-pooed” by unqualified persons, on a statement that is itself unqualified, and without demonstrating that those opponents themselves are unqualified. And this is a key point in his overall argument. Sure, if it was just a passing comment, I would understand the passage not being sourced. But it’s not a passing comment. His article turns on this passage.
How do I know? How do I know if there is or isn’t a paucity of science degrees in major media companies and/or in their news rooms? Is the reader to take as true, and on trust, what George says about the lack of science degrees in the news room?
The proliferation of science degrees in the news room isn’t what’s important here in this post. What’s important is the proper representation of reality and the integrity of a valid argument. As a reader, if
Continue reading How About Some Facts to Support Some Facts?
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
