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.
While recently reviewing the Friends of the Earth US (FOE) website, I saw that they introduced a new genetic engineering policy campaigner named Eric Hoffman. Congratulations to Mr. Hoffman. Perhaps at a future time, he and I can have some interesting discussions on issues of mutual concern. But I hope that those future discussions would be based upon better writing than that which I found in connection with Mr. Hoffman’s employment announcement.
As part of the FOE US introduction of Mr. Hoffman, FOE used the following lead-in passage:
Friends of the Earth is a fierce advocate of scientific progress, but corporations often seek profit from scientific developments with little regard for human health. We must take precaution (sic) to ensure new technologies don’t do more harm than good.
Now, I’ll put aside the minor spelling error in their second sentence. I’ll also put aside the fact that there was no date on this post, which is really just a “bush league” error when it comes to Website writing and management. Instead of those small errors, I’ll just concentrate on the meaning of the passage itself.
This approach of playing the “anti-corporate card” gets a bit wearisome, and is plainly just bad argumentation. The anti-corporate card to which I refer is the phrase, “corporations often seek profit from scientific development with little regard for human health.” Let’s take this phrase apart to see how it represents poor argumentation on the part of FOE and only weakens any argument that they are trying to make.
“Corporations often seek profit.” Yes. Okay, I can go along with that part. That is the function of a corporation, to seek a profit in its activities, many of which are directed at scientific developments. Thankfully they do that. Without profits, no one would ever get a merit raise in pay. And without scientific developments, people would be dropping dead from what are now, as compared to the past, “easily-cured” illnesses or from complications arising out of minor injuries. Now, let’s move on to the next part of the phrase and talk about “with little regard for human health.”
This part of the phrase conjures up a picture of research & development departments operated by zany, madcap scientists who indiscriminately toss new products out the door without adequately testing them, or at least without testing them to the satisfaction of government regulators within the jurisdictions in which their corporations do business. In my career, I’ve known many R&D personnel, and have found them to be painfully cautious and responsible personalities, almost to the point, perhaps, of being too cautious. I’ve yet to meet one who I would consider as either a businessperson or scientist with “little regard for human health.” If, indeed, these individuals, and the corporations for which they worked, “often” acted as portrayed by this phrase, their mad scientist-like lack of “regard for human health” would produce deadly products quickly killing thousands, drawing the ire of the marketplace, causing the corporation to lose revenue quickly, putting the
Continue reading FOE Plays Anti-Corporate Card
For those interested in learning about the anti-corporate movement, I recommend a book that I recently completed. The Rise of the Anti-Corporate Movement by Evan Osborne is a first-rate work.
Subtitled Corporations and the People Who Hate Them, in this book Evan does good work in laying out the history of the corporation, taking us back about four millennia to the origin of what evolved into today’s modern corporation. He then moves us forward in time, tracing the development of the corporation from ancient Assyria, up through 18th century Britain, and then to its current form both worldwide and in the United States. At each stop in this journey through corporate time, Evan stops to impress upon the reader the details of corporate myth created at each stage, emphasizing how those myths trickled down into today’s collective social conscience, but debunking the myth before continuing the journey.
During the early parts of the journey, he deftly points out that previous forms of the corporation had, by virtue of their legal foundation in significantly less democratic societies, much more power than the corporate form takes in today’s America, decrying the claims by anti-corporate activists that modern corporations are omnipotent and all-powerful. He punctuates this illustrative journey of countering the claims of the anti-corporate movement (ACM) with profound insights, based on common sense and everyday observations. One such insight undermines general ACM claims of runaway corporate power by observing the corporate disdain for the corporate income tax and stating that if corporations were truly as all-powerful as the ACM makes them out to be, then indeed there would be no income tax.
About a third of the way through the book, Evan, an economist at Wright State University, takes on the economic assertion often put forth by the ACM, that society is actually poorer because of the existence of the corporation. Over many pages, he does an excellent job explaining how this claim is invalid. His counter-argument is clear, cogent, and convincing. I’ve read other books making this same argument (For example, The Role of Business in the Modern World, by David Henderson.), but they were not nearly as on-point or as substantially sourced as is The Rise.
This is definitely a book that should be read by all engaged in business issues involving activists and NGOs.
It’s also a book that could benefit members of the general public, to help dispel some of those corporate myths generated over the past few hundred years. I have no illusions that members of the general public will read this book any time soon. But, the loss is theirs because of the great insights they would miss. I’ll close with one of those insights.
Near the end of the book, when Evan invokes the late economist Milton Friedman who stated that the corporation owes no more “social responsibility” than any other member of society, Evan states that it is just as improper for the anti-corporate campaigner to use the law to force
Continue reading A Journey in Anti-Corporate Thought
In the digital world, most everyone keeps their eye out for what will be the “next big thing.” Usually it’s a technology, either hardware or software. Lately Google’s been hitting it hard and heavy on the forecasted next big thing stage, Google Wave and Droid.
But I’ve been thinking lately that the next big thing in the online world might be a movement, rather than a technology. And that movement I have in mind is “slacktivism.”
What’s slacktivism? The word itself is a portmanteau of “slacker” and “activism.” Thus, the meaning becomes clear. For further edification, let’s take a definition from the UrbanDictionary.com. They define slacktivism as:
One of those feel-good internet campaigns that doesn’t actually help anybody or has political impact. It’s your way of pretending to care while sitting on your butt in front of a computer playing WoW. Also used for people who want to get a million people on their page by before bettering themselves (sic) or the world instead of just doing it.
Other than the grammar or typo error there in the last sentence, the UrbanDictionary.com is clearly saying that slacktivism is something like what we could call “armchair activism.” It’s being an “activist” without actually being one, although you could still wear the black tee shirt and/or beret while sitting at your computer.
Slacktivism is a way for people to make themselves feel like they are advocating for a social cause, while actually committing little or no time or money to the effort. It’s, for the most part, a feel-good activity. Not only does slacktivism make individuals feel good about themselves when they sign up to be a friend, fan, or follower on the page of a cause’s website or social network or Twitter page, but the act of slacktivism impresses others with the individual’s “social awareness.” That impression, of which the individual is aware, further adds to the individual’s ego gratification.
I don’t think we need any social psychology references to support these assertions. It’s all pretty much backed by common sense acquired from our years of experience with the human condition. So, given the ease of slacktivism as measured against its psychological benefits, it would follow that many people would sign-up online for an activist’s cause, and not really add much to the activist effort in the process. To test my theory, let’s have an example.
On Tuesday, January 19, 2010 which is the day on which I wrote this post (Yes, I know it’s dated January 28th, but thanks to the magic of the Word Press scheduling function such miracles are possible.), I went to the Greenpeace.org/usa site and clicked on the link to their Facebook fan page. When I went to their Facebook fan page, I noticed that, on that date, Greenpeace USA had 41,728 fans. I wanted to see how “active” these individuals might be, so to test my slacktivism theory, I scrolled down to the Greenpeace USA “Causes” box and clicked on “See Greenpeace USA’s Total Impact.”
For
Continue reading Could Slacktivism Be the Next Big Thing?
Competition comes in several classes. Let’ discuss.
First of all, you, as a business person, have obviously known about the class of “direct” competitors since you went into business, and probably you have known about this class of competitor as far back as those tender years when you were first able to sit up and recognize for what money was actually used. Direct competitors, of course, are those other companies which sell the same products or services that your own company sells.
Secondly, you’ve most likely known about the class of “indirect” competitors, also just about as long as you’ve known for what money is used. When you were a kid with five bucks burning a hole in your pocket, you knew that you could use that moolah to buy a toy or you could use it to buy a movie ticket or you could use it to buy an ice cream cone. None of the companies which produced those goods or that service were direct competitors, but they were indirect competitors vying for that five bucks in your pocket.
The classes of direct and indirect competition are not new. Business people have always taken seriously the impact of direct and even indirect competition, and have planned and altered their business models accordingly. This is well-known.
“Irregular Competition” Introduced
But what perhaps isn’t as well-known to you is the class of competition which I have named “irregular competition.” That is a term I coin and a concept which I define and introduce to you today.
When your direct and indirect competitors bring their offerings to market, they tell that market just how great are their offerings and how well those offerings can meet the needs and wants of the market targeted. And while making their sales pitch, those direct and indirect competitors play with the image of your company. Your competitors, direct and indirect alike, will take every opportunity to portray your company image in a manner that would not please you and by doing so communicate to your common market how well your products or services do not meet the needs of those consumers that you jointly serve.
Either through comparative advertising, or through innuendo, or via some other communications mechanism, your direct or indirect competition promotes the image of their own company and demotes the image of your company. Again, this is well-known. So if it’s well-known, why am I writing about it?
I write about this in order to make a point about competition in general, either direct or indirect, and to tie that point into the less well-known concept of “irregular competition.” Competition is not just about promoting competing products or services. It’s also about demoting, about tearing down, tearing down the image of the competitor. To tear down the image of a competitor means to battle for what the competitor’s company or brand image means, and to achieve an agendized goal in the process.
In the case of your direct and indirect competition, that agendized goal is to sell more products or services
Continue reading "Irregular Competition" – The Newest Threat
|
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. |
|
