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?
Yesterday I posted about David Korten’s book, When Corporations Rule the World. This author is one of the leading thinkers in the area of anti-corporatism, and has published extensively on the subject. Although I don’t agree with much of what he writes, I do like reading him and others to keep abreast of anti-corporate thinking, both current and historic.
When I read much of the anti-corporate literature, I keep coming back to the thought of “who is really responsible for the corporate power” that we see today? Of course, “corporate power,” and its degrees, is a relatively defined term and is the subject for many, many other posts. But for today and the purposes of this discussion, let’s just go with the overarching theme of “corporate power” as it is often referred to in anti-corporate literature.
Throughout When Corporations Rule the World, David “points the finger” of the genesis of corporate power at the corporations themselves. I suppose that would seem logical, but to me it seems logical only in a superficial way. For example, on page 64 of my edition, David talks about how corporate power in America coalesced after the Civil War.
The huge profits pouring in from military procurement contracts allowed industrial interests to take advantage of the disorder and rampant political corruption to virtually buy legislation that gave them massive grants of money and land to expand the Western railway system. The greater its profits, the tighter the emergent industrial class was able to solidify its hold on government to obtain further benefits.
Let’s look more deeply at the logic. (Perhaps you already realize where I’m going with this.)
I didn’t check David’s reference for this statement, but, for the sake of this discussion, let’s just assume that he is reporting accurately. I’ll repeat the question which is the title of this post.
Who is Really Responsible for Corporate Power?
In the quoted example David gave, how about placing at least some of the blame on the folks in government? Talk about personal responsibility.
One of the themes of anti-corporate thinkers is that they maintain that the corporate form, and the legal protections it affords, abdicates the personal responsibility of the people that run the corporation. From my readings of anti-corporate thinkers and writers, this neglect of personal responsibility appears to be anathema and is one of their “pet peeves.” So, then, in anti-corporate thinking, why isn’t the idea of personal responsibility applied back against government? In my readings of anti-corporate literature, I rarely see the idea of lack of personal responsibility thrown back into the face of politicians.
Corruption is a two-way street. The corruption to which David alludes in the quote above could not have taken place had the government officials had a sufficient level of personal responsibility and integrity.
So, again, who is really responsible for corporate power?
It takes two to tango.
|
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. |
|
