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
A couple days ago I finished a really great book, Contention and Corporate Social Responsibility by Sarah A. Soule. Although, I purchased this book while wanting to obtain more information about the structure of anti-corporate activism, I bought this book because I also wanted to get additional information on corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, which are often a knee-jerk response to anti-corporate activist initiatives. Believing that this book was oriented more toward my CSR hunt, and not toward the anti-corporate activism anatomy search, I thought, “Well, I’ll buy this one now while I continue to hunt down more works on the anatomy of anti-corporate activism.”
After receiving this book and jumping into the first chapter or two, I was pleasantly surprised. This book concerns itself more with the structure and process of anti-corporate activism than it does with the response of CSR. To this point, here is an excerpt from a review I wrote about this book. (The full review appears on both Amazon.com and on my Reading List page in my LinkedIn.com profile.)
Although I would have chosen a different title, Sarah Soule turns in a great book here. In this work, Sarah contributes one of the first academic examinations on the structure of anti-corporate activism and its effects on corporate behaviors . . . Sarah examines activist initiatives in two time periods: 1960 to 1990 and then from 1990 to present day (2009). Her findings characterize activism, as it affects the corporation, into two different groupings each with historical context, creating a typology by which corporate analysts can categorize activist efforts and devise mechanisms for coping. This typology can be invaluable to corporate analysts attempting to devise various strategies in response to various anti-corporate activist initiatives.
So, in the end, I received that which I sought, but in an indirect manner due to the abstractness of the book’s title.
Generally, I liked everything I found in the book such as her approach and her argumentation process, but on page 154 I found a comment with which I must take umbrage.
In the section entitled “The Impact of Anticorporate Activism on Corporations,” Sarah talks about the key theme of her book being that anti-corporate movements do matter to corporations. As evidence of this assertion, she points to an earlier discussion in the book citing research into the effects of protest on company stock price, as well as other examples of activist influence on corporations as discussed in the book. Of this influence she says,
“This is good news for activists, of course. But it is also good news for corporations who can find that doing the right thing can actually make good business sense.”
Here comes the umbrage.
The right thing? Who says it’s the right thing? This is an attitude that I have found in much anti-corporatist literature, one which automatically assumes that any activist action against a corporation is “right.” Right is not always right. To quote Bill Clinton, it would depends on “what the meaning of
Continue reading Who Says Doing the Right Thing is "Right"?
There are three primary concepts on which society functions: faith, rule of law, and commerce. When these three key functions are allowed to find their optimum, society can really hum along. They act independently, but yet together. There are some overlaps among their functions, naturally. Such as when the ideas of
Each key has a function.
faith form the basis of law, or when the principles of law are used to modify commerce, or when the fruits of commerce are used to support faith or government. Venn diagrams are always interesting and revealing.
The dangers to society though, I think, are when the Venn diagrams of the three primary concepts overlap too much or when one circle overshadows the other. Perhaps we have reached that point of overlap and overshadow.
Over the past few decades I’ve seen the influence of faith fade in the daily lives around me, with its replacement coming either in the sphere of government or commerce. Faith serves many a purpose. One of which is to support charity, and the caring of individuals unable to do so for themselves. As the influence of faith has receded, so has its ability to offer care to those who need it. And instead of that faith-based care, that which was originally called “charity,” the need has been replaced by a faceless societal driver. That driver is from the rule of law, or what we call government.
The Venn diagram of the triad has changed, such that the circle representing faith has gotten smaller, while the circle representing rule of law has grown larger, usurping some of the functions of faith.
When charity was faith-based, the charity was provided by individuals. Charity was then personal. Faith called upon us to be charitable, individually, personally, and offer ourselves to the service of others, on a one-to-one basis. Those in need benefitted as did those who helped. Society was enriched, one helping gesture at a time. We felt good about ourselves.
In an article entitled “Government Usurps Charitable Giving and Nature,” author John Atwood explores this idea. He says:
An act of charity ennobles the grateful recipient and burnishes the kinder spirit of the giver.
As the circle of government has grown larger in the Venn diagram of society, as government, aided by NGOs and activists, has increased its influence within society, we are poorer for the lack of good that is created. As John Atwood points out:
Government can’t bring good to its people, it can only bring force and power and results, numbers, outcomes. The good is within the individual and the people. The “good” government does is only defined by the elites who determine those results, outcomes, numbers and forces to exert.
John makes an excellent point. In other words, governments aided through NGOs and activists, have taken the “good” out of charity. They have helped remove the “faith” we used to have in each other. The faith that we would all do right by each other. That faith has been reduced to
Continue reading Personal Charity vs. Charity-By-Law
As I peruse the various social networks out there, I’m often highly amused at the things that people write on their pages.
Far too many of my colleagues roam the halls of social media espousing its virtues and calling for a worldwide revolution in the way we communicate. Sacrilege?
A novice blogger, named Alex Weber, recently posted a short treatise about how to cope in a new city, while still getting the most bang for your buck.
|
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. |
|
