Since I have watched the documentary 《The Corporation》（解构企业） and been shocked twice , I think it necessary to write something as notes.
This documentary examines the nature evolution impacts and possible futures of the modern business corporation. It gives us some scandals to prove whether there is lack of public control over big company. Consider the media debate about the basic operating principles of the corporate world was quickly reduced to a game of following the leaders, it is worthwhile to spend 6 years creating the wonderful documentary. Of course, it does not mean the documentary is perfect in any impacts especially in the debate about sources privatization.
Now I will list some points I consider worthy as well as my own views. It is welcome for you to leave you responses and start a discussion.
1．A corporation is a paradox, an institution which creates great wealth but causes enormous and often hidden harms. (I do not think principles apply to social company.)
2. A corporation is an externalizing machine, each one is designed in a very efficient way to accomplish particular objectives. In the achievement of those objectives. In the achievement of those objectives, there is not any question of malevolence or of will. The enterprise has within it, those characteristics that enable it to do that for which it was designed. The pressure is on all of the corporations to deliver results now and to externalize any lost that this unwary or uncaring public, will allow it to externalize.
3. If we regard those general corporations as people, what kind of them belong to?
First, they have not moral conscience (they have been designed by law to be concerned only for their stockholders but something called their stakeholders like the community or the work force or whatever)
Second, almost everything they do come in the profit motivation, it seems there’s no such thing as enough.( they are required by law to place the financial interests of their owners above competive interests. In fact the corporation is legally bound to put its bottom line ahead of everything eles, even the public good.)
Third, generally, they have short eyes. So they are concerned only for the short term profit of their stockholders who are very highly concentrated.
So we can analyze it like a psychiatrist to a patient.
Consider those cases, such as harming to workers, payoffs, union busting, factory fires, sweatshops and so on, we can make the following conclusions.
a) Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
b) Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.( Though the investment that’s attracted to these countries there will be a trickle down effect into the communities, but because so many countries are now in the game of creating these free trade enclaves, they have to keep providing more and more incentives for companies to come to their little denationalized pocket.)
c) Harm to human health. (For example, dangerous products, toxic waste, pollution, synthetic chemicals)
d) Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
e) Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit.
f) Incapacity to experience guilty.
g) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaves.
So we can reasonably call them psychopath.
Fourth, and these is mostly help me solve a problem about human that puzzle me for a long time. Human being is born to belong good or bad?
My conclusion is neither. I mean the human nature is neutral.
Our nature of human allows all kinds of behavior. I mean everyone of us under some circumstance, could be a Nazi concentration camp guard (Have you read Bernhard Schlink’s book The Reader?) and a saint.
A team whose target is just profit is terrible and harmful to the public. With the same aim, they act like a callous man, a psychopath. But as a ordinary person, you would probably face the reality, where you do not have enough power and sometimes if you had really free hand, if you really did what you wanted to do that suits your personal thoughts and your personal priorities you’d act differently. But as a CEO you can not do that. You can not stop layoff shave being so wide-spread, it is the consequence of modern capitalism.
So it is necessary to distinguish between the institution and the individual.
So slavery for example or other forms of tyranny are inherently monstrous but the individuals participating in them may be the nicest guys you could imagine, benevolent friendly nice to their children, even nice to their slaves caring about other people. I mean as individuals they may be anything. In their institutional role they’re monsters, because the institution is monstrous.
But as a member in stockholder-group, people just want money, that’s the bottom line.
To be continued…….
This blog focuses on knowledge management, cloud computing, unless special instructions its content comes from own. Your responses will be welcome.