The Corporation, a product of the market, or just another communist conspiracy?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
There is no doubt that corporations can be effective, incredibly effective in the most difficult of environments. The United States was founded by corporate charters.


But it wasn't an easy relationship.

I looked for a more neutral story on the role of corporations in the colonization of the U.S., but didn't have much luck.

This is the best example of a historical and neutral position of the role of corporations in the founding of the U.S. Colonies.

socserv.mcmaster.ca...


Before the
English had made their first permanent settlements in America
their ingenious merchant adventurers had combined with this
developed institution their well-tested device of a joint stock
or common capital contributed in shares, and so paved the way for
its most extensive application, in the domain of business.(1*)
From the founding of Jamestown to the days of the Revolution,
successive shiploads of British subjects brought with them larger
and larger familiarity with the corporation, -- for plantation
and town organization, for charitable, religious, or literary
foundations, for trading and local business purposes. The
institution was well matured in England during the American
colonial period.


However, there is a great many more sites that describe colonial distrust of the corporation from the beginning.

www.duhc.org...


British Crown Corporations began operating in North America with the start of European settlement. These Crown Corporations, also known as colonial corporations, were a tool to export wealth back to the stockholders and the monarch that chartered them. The creation of corporations expanded empire and made the aristocracy wealthy. These early crown corporations were given the right to levy taxes, wage war, and imprison people all while enjoying a monopoly over trade in the regions where they operated. As Thomas Hobbes stated, corporations are “chips off the old block of sovereignty.”

It was clear though that these corporations possessed no rights of their own, but were rather artificial creations of the monarch, that existed for the benefit of the sovereign monarch. At any point the sovereign could revoke a corporation’s charter (the legal document that allows a corporation to exist).

Colonial anger and resentment against corporate power grew as the English Parliament introduced measures that protected trade by Crown corporations over that of local colonial merchants. In direct protest against Parliament's tax protections that subsidized the East India Company, colonists organized an act of civil disobedience that came to be known as the Boston Tea Party. In that one act of property destruction, colonists destroyed the equivalent of one million dollars of the Company's property.


reclaimdemocracy.org...


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:





Here is some history on the creation of the corporation. This article is also fairly neutral, although at first it sounds anti-corporate, as you read further the authors opinion does have considerable admiration for the entity.

www.ribbonfarm.com...


On 8 June, a Scottish banker named Alexander Fordyce shorted the collapsing Company’s shares in the London markets. But a momentary bounce-back in the stock ruined his plans, and he skipped town leaving £550,000 in debt. Much of this was owed to the Ayr Bank, which imploded. In less than three weeks, another 30 banks collapsed across Europe, bringing trade to a standstill.....
...
If this sounds eerily familiar, it shouldn’t. The year was 1772, exactly 239 years ago today, the apogee of power for the corporation as a business construct. The company was the British East India company (EIC). The bubble that burst was the East India Bubble. Between the founding of the EIC in 1600 and the post-subprime world of 2011, the idea of the corporation was born, matured, over-extended, reined-in, refined, patched, updated, over-extended again, propped-up and finally widely declared to be obsolete. Between 2011 and 2100, it will decline — hopefully gracefully — into a well-behaved retiree on the economic scene.


Many I have debated on the issue of corporate control have argued that only government can violate our liberties, but that is not true at all. Corporations were in fact the original form of government in the U.S., and the very thing that the Colonist revolted against.

Which leads to the question.

Are corporations an entity that exists to establish a governing control over the economy, to limit our ability to engage in free enterprise, to control the markets, the money supply, and the ability of individuals to engage in business?

Or

Are corporations the model of true capitalism, creators of great wealth, and scientific advancement, the true form of capitalism, the institutions that have built our great nations?

Or perhaps something inbetween?

edit on 1-2-2013 by poet1b because: remove misplaced link




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Corporations are the antithesis of communism. They seek to gather all the means of production into a few hands. Communism seeks to distribute the means of production into everyone's hands. If you really know what communism is about, and don't believe all the nonsense propaganda put out by the corporations.

This country has been steadily heading towards complete corporatization for a while now. Which is a VERY BAD thing. So much worse than the worst implementations of communism. This is the real problem with america, and somehow they got everyone to fear the word communism. Which is actually the direction we should be heading. No matter how many times people say otherwise, this country is nowhere close to communism. We're on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.

Don't get me wrong. We should be somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

10% owns 90% of the wealth. BUT 0.01% owns 99.99% of the means of production. It's the means of production that's the truly important part. You won't find many people talking about it....
We're in a very dangerous position right now. But it's the opposite of communism, corporatization. that's the real problem.
edit on 2-2-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Well, a corporation is the anti-thesis to the ideal of communism, but the reality of communism, like the former USSR, or current communist China, is very similar to the corporate structure, as it has evolved.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Corporations are the way CAPITALISTS protect their personal assets.

When a business is incorporated the owner is not held responsible for it's actions. It creates a limited liability for the owner. That is why they say they are treated as people, because in court essentially they are. The company is held liable in any case, not the owner/s. The owners personal wealth is protected.

It also gives CAPITALISTS more power politically. If companies of the same ilk join together, cooperate, collectivize, incorporate, all the things we're taught not to do, then collectively they have more power to lobby government for their benefit.

The exact reason we are taught to be "staunch individualists", because then we are weak. Capitalists collectivize to serve, er, exploit you better.

Incorporated companies are also known as limited liability companies Ltd, or LLC.

It has nothing to do with communism, because communism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Read a little bit about it and, you know, deny ignorance.

www.mycorporation.com...
edit on 2/2/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I hear what you are saying, and essentially, the big difference between corporations and communists, is that corporations are better liars.

er better business men, er lawyers.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Corporations are just another form of business organization.

I think the problem is your definition of communism. Communism, and capitalism, are economic systems that are not compatible with each other, one being private ownership, the other workers common ownership.


Communism

A system of social organization in which goods are held in common.

Communism in the United States is something of an anomaly. The basic principles of communism are, by design, at odds with the free enterprise foundation of U.S. capitalism. The freedom of individuals to privately own property, start a business, and own the means of production is a basic tenet of U.S. government, and communism opposes this arrangement. However, there have been, are, and probably always will be communists in the United States.


Communism

And 'common ownership' means 'worker ownership'...


The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference....

....Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.


Anton Pannekoek 1947 Public Ownership and Common Ownership

edit on 2/2/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Corporations are also a form of governance, they can be worker owned, and the workers often own a large portion of the corporation through their pension plans.

If worker ownership is your definition of communism, then that would make corporations a communist entity.

At their origins, corporations were a way to extend the power of the empire. Government ownership of trade.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What I don't understand about communist / socialist or any other group , is if they truly believe that such a system could actually work and be successful why don't they implement it.

This could be done peacefully and legally. For example why doesn't the communist party in the USA start a corporation where each investor (comrade) can put all their money into the communist corporation

Surely with the pool of money they could buy land,resources,companies,housing,hospital, etc. In addition each investor (Marxist,etc) would get a stake within the company.

if not, what couldn't you do with a corporation that you could do under what you consider a communist state? Or what are you looking from a communist state or expect to get from a communist state?
edit on 2-2-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


They do, they're called Cooperatives.
wiki



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by interupt42
 


They do, they're called Cooperatives.
wiki


Cool.


Man I thought I was smart ,but it looks like you are right and someone beat me to the idea.


So obviously there must exist utopian communist societies as Cooperatives. So what is the problem? and why aren't all communist part of it?

edit on 2-2-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


Essentially all corporations are a form of cooperative. Some of them work out quite well, but when it comes to business, crime does pay, and those organizations willing to do what ever to gain wealth and power, succeed at just that.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42
What I don't understand about communist / socialist or any other group , is if they truly believe that such a system could actually work and be successful why don't they implement it.


Why don't who implement it?


This could be done peacefully and legally. For example why doesn't the communist party in the USA start a corporation where each investor (comrade) can put all their money into the communist corporation.


Communists don't start corporations. First off you don't start with a corporation, a corporation is a collective of individual businesses. But there are many worker owned companies in the US. But it's not easy to do within a capitalist economy. A true communist economy is not based on making profit, but allowing common access to the means to produce so that no one minority class can monopolise the means to produce, and exploit those who don't have access. It is a needs based economy, not profit based. Industry would be set up to meet the needs of the community, so jobs are not sent overseas, and people are not made unemployed because some private owner is not making enough profit for themselves.


Surely with the pool of money they could buy land,resources,companies,housing,hospital, etc. In addition each investor (Marxist,etc) would get a stake within the company.

if not, what couldn't you do with a corporation that you could do under what you consider a communist state? Or what are you looking from a communist state or expect to get from a communist state?


But communists don't invest, it's not about investing, and making money. Communism is not a state, it is an economic system. True communism/socialism has been a working class movement, people who don't have money to invest, people who are exploited by the capitalist system.

Communism/socialism implies workers common ownership and industry set up to meet peoples needs, rather than make profit for private individuals.

But I thought this thread was about corporations not communism?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by interupt42
What I don't understand about communist / socialist or any other group , is if they truly believe that such a system could actually work and be successful why don't they implement it.


Why don't who implement it?

You or anyone who wants to start a socialist / communist way of living.


Originally posted by ANOK

This could be done peacefully and legally. For example why doesn't the communist party in the USA start a corporation where each investor (comrade) can put all their money into the communist corporation.


Communists don't start corporations. First off you don't start with a corporation, a corporation is a collective of individual businesses. But there are many worker owned companies in the US. But it's not easy to do within a capitalist economy. A true communist economy is not based on making profit, but allowing common access to the means to produce so that no one minority class can monopolise the means to produce, and exploit those who don't have access. It is a needs based economy, not profit based. Industry would be set up to meet the needs of the community, so jobs are not sent overseas, and people are not made unemployed because some private owner is not making enough profit for themselves.


The corporation is not what matters, its the way of living correct? So if a corporation lets you live a socialist or communist way why do care?

The only reason a corporation has to make a profit is because its investors in demand it . In your communist community it would not require any profit. The money would just be redistributed based on the needs of the community. You are also not required to send jobs overseas as a corporation.



Originally posted by ANOK

Surely with the pool of money they could buy land,resources,companies,housing,hospital, etc. In addition each investor (Marxist,etc) would get a stake within the company.

if not, what couldn't you do with a corporation that you could do under what you consider a communist state? Or what are you looking from a communist state or expect to get from a communist state?


But communists don't invest, it's not about investing, and making money. Communism is not a state, it is an economic system. True communism/socialism has been a working class movement, people who don't have money to invest, people who are exploited by the capitalist system.

Communism/socialism implies workers common ownership and industry set up to meet peoples needs, rather than make profit for private individuals.




The point of setting up the corporation for a communist wouldn't be to invest but rather to allow you to legally live the way you want with your community.


Originally posted by ANOK
But I thought this thread was about corporations not communism?

Are we not talking about corporations?


So why couldn't the communist WAY OF LIFE not work under a Cooperative?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42
The corporation is not what matters, its the way of living correct? So if a corporation lets you live a socialist or communist way why do care?


No communism is not a way of living. It is simply who owns the means to produce. If it was a way of living that would apply there are rules. The whole idea of communism/socialism (same thing) is the workers, you and me, would be free from the restrictions of capitalism, and would be able to produce what we need.

It does not give a you a plan for how to live, or even how to organise business.


The only reason a corporation has to make a profit is because its investors in demand it . In your communist community it would not require any profit. The money would just be redistributed based on the needs of the community. You are also not required to send jobs overseas as a corporation.


Yes because the investors are the owners. I think you are confusing corporations with public companies. A corporation can be a group of privately owned companies also. Public companies are also capitalist, because the share holders are private owners.


So why couldn't the communist WAY OF LIFE not work under a Cooperative?


Again there is no communist WAY OF LIFE. In a communist economy companies would be cooperative, but that does not mean they are a corporation. Cooperative simply means worker owned, workers cooperating to run a company. Corporations are different in different types of economies, and there is nothing essentially wrong with the idea. Capitalists cooperating together is a bad thing FOR US, WE, the workers, cooperating is a good thing for US, and bad for THEM. Can you not see that? We need to relearn worker solidarity.

Why Is International Solidarity of Workers Important?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
What so many ignore is that the ideal of communism and the reality are very different. Countries like the USSR China, wind up being giant corporations. They compete with other International corporations.

The difference being that here in the U.S., the taxpayers get stuck with supporting the corporations, without the reciprocal support in return.

A corporation, by grant of its legal status akin to the individual, is an extension of the state, and always has been.

Corporations are supposed to be capitalistic, but when the state winds up supporting the corporation, insuring its existence, it is not a capitalistic entity, but a child of the state, as corporations were originally created.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree that typical capitalist corporations are bad for the long term because the investors have unattainable expectations of increasing yearly profits for the stake holders.

However, if a bunch of communist owned the company they would not be concerned with profit just enough to produce what they need. So greed and unattainable goals is not a issue. The corporation itself is not the issue its the unrealistic yearly profit increases from greedy investors that will do anything to get those gains year after year that is the problem. However, in a communist employee owned corporation that would not be an issue.

Again , what is that you are looking from communism that could not be provided using a corporation?



In a communist economy companies would be cooperative, but that does not mean they are a corporation. Cooperative simply means worker owned, workers cooperating to run a company.


corporation is just a word or a term, its what it can provide that matters. Why couldn't a group of communist start a new private corporation where only the workers of the company own the stocks? Wouldn't that give you worker owned, workers cooperating to run a company?




Capitalists cooperating together is a bad thing FOR US, WE, the workers, cooperating is a good thing for US, and bad for THEM.

So again why can't you do that with a private corporation? Let the capitalist run THEIR PROFIT DRIVEN corporations while you the communist owners not worry about the profit or their companies?.

It appears to me that you might be too wrapped around the terminology more so than the goal. It might not be a communist state but I think that it might be a better way to getting what you want without forcing others into a system that they might be skeptical off.

As far as I know their is only corporatism around the world and no true capitalist or communist state.Therefore starting small might be the better way to start than trying to forcefully or verbally convert the masses.

Maybe enough communist type companies are created and enough communist type societies flourish that you might get others to follow by successful examples.

So what is your communist societies goal?
edit on 2-2-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
What we have seen so far is that a corporation is a form of government, as it was originally created for colonization, a capitalistic entity, and a communistic entity, which mainly serves as a legal entity which shields people working behind the mask from the consequences of their actions.

The result being that corporations are just another scam.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Here is another link to a thread I created on corporations.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How International Bankers took back control of the modern world.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Here is a quote from the last l link in the Op that puts things into perspective.


The second thing to understand about the evolution of the corporation is that the apogee of power did not coincide with the apogee of reach. In the 1780s, only a small fraction of humanity was employed by corporations, but corporations were shaping the destinies of empires. In the centuries that followed the crash of 1772, the power of the corporation was curtailed significantly, but in terms of sheer reach, they continued to grow, until by around 1980, a significant fraction of humanity was effectively being governed by corporations.


A corporation is a from of government that owns the means of production.

That would be communism.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

A corporation is a from of government that owns the means of production.

That would be communism.


A corporation is not a form of government. I have explained what corporations are.

Communism is not government ownership of the means of production, that is state-capialism. Communism is not a form of government either, it is an economic system.


Corporation

The most common form of business organization, and one which is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners, the issuance of shares of easily transferable stock, and existence as a going concern. The process of becoming a corporation, call incorporation, gives the company separate legal standing from its owners and protects those owners from being personally liable in the event that the company is sued (a condition known as limited liability). Incorporation also provides companies with a more flexible way to manage their ownership structure. In addition, there are different tax implications for corporations, although these can be both advantageous and disadvantageous. In these respects, corporations differ from sole proprietorships and limited partnerships.


www.investorwords.com...

Communism doesn't require government at all, so how can it be a state system?

Anarchists are communists, so how can that be eh?


Anarchists are socialists because they want the improvement of society, and they are communists because they are convinced that such a transformation of society can only result from the establishment of a commonwealth of property.

The aims of anarchists and true communists are identical. Why, then, are anarchists not satisfied to call themselves socialists or communists? Because they do not want to be confused with people who misappropriate these words, as many people do nowadays, and because they believe communism would be an incomplete, less-than-desirable system if not infused with the spirit of anarchism.

Communists and anarchists also agree on tactics.


Anarchist Communism (1889)

Note that was written in 1889, the right wing establishment were already appropriated left-wing terms, and demonizing them.

BTW communism and socialism mean the same thing.


Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.


The Terms “Socialism” and “Communism”

edit on 2/10/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join