Anti-corporation Sentiment

Nah, last I checked, you can quit that job whenever you want and go get a job somewhere else, it's not like there aren't numerous other non-corporation businesses hiring at any given time along with banks that specialize in loaning to people who want to start up their own businesses. And want to know why it's top to down? Because the guys at the top having been working upwards and supporting the business or owning it. If I own my house and you're in it, you'll act according the rules in that house so long as they don't go against the rules of the country that the house is in.

edited 17th May '11 9:53:03 PM by Usht

"you can quit that job whenever you want and go get a job somewhere else"

Let's be a tad more realistic now...

"And want to know why it's top to down? Because the guys at the top having been working upwards and supporting the business or owning it. If I own my house and you're in it, you'll act according the rules in that house so long as they don't go against the rules of the country that the house is in."

It should be owned by the workers. The boss is a parasite.

edited 17th May '11 9:55:16 PM by LoveHappiness

And you can always escape to Switzerland, then form a singing group and...

A tad bit more realistic eh? You live in the US? Congrats, you're eligible for support from the government for a sufficiently long amount of time until you get a new job. Want a new job? Start doing some research, in a bustling economy like in the US, there's multiple businesses in the area at any given time that are willing to hire you. If you're specialized in a certain area, you may need to travel further but then again, if you're specialized, chances are you're making more money than the unspecialized worker anyway.

And the boss is not a parasite, s/he is the overseer. You expect something that big to manage itself? No, those people at the top? They do more than look fancy, they make major decision regarding the financial state of the company.

edited 17th May '11 9:56:59 PM by Usht

The problem with corporations is generally that without the proper oversight, the ones most likely to be successful are the ones playing the most atrociously dirty. Business is rather cascading in that advantages tend to stack up very quickly — if you take four or five that the nice guys couldn't on moral grounds, you're basically outclassing them at every level of production.

edited 17th May '11 9:57:38 PM by Pykrete

My guess, most people do not want a boss. As for the top-down aspect, we can have workers' councils. So basically the workers own the business, and there are temporary and instantly revocable delegates which follow the mandates decided by the workers.

edited 17th May '11 10:08:45 PM by LoveHappiness

If there's no clear boss, nothing gets done. Trust me, I've worked at a business that had four owners, all giving conflicting orders. Was not fun or productive.

No, Love, no one wants to be a caterpillar, everyone wants to be a butterfly. Alas, unlike in analogy in nature, there will, by definition, be less bosses than workers and so unless you work for it, you won't get to be boss unless you start up your own business which is hard work anyway. One way or another, you're in for hard work because that's productive.

"If there's no clear boss, nothing gets done"

There are many major successful examples.

And there are many, many more examples of systems with a clear leader getting a lot more done and in much larger groups too. Consider any nation ever for example.

"And there are many, many more examples of systems with a clear leader getting a lot more done and in much larger groups too. Consider any nation ever for example."

And I think nations shouldn't exist either, no surprise...

I loathe most "big businesses" because they got there through doing the absolute cheapest things they could manage. Many of the practices used were probably illegal, and while not illegal, many of them were immoral in my eyes, thus my feelings on the manner.

Take my civilian employer for instance. They ask the world of my employees, but they pay them 10 dollars an hour to start, and barely ever give raises. They give the bare minimum in every category when it comes to healthcare, leave time, and compliance with military service (As I'm finding out currently). One of my troops has been working for this company for 5 years, and he makes 11.38 an hour and is, in all but name and title, a supervisor.

So this guy is working at a capacity far beyond his wage, with responsibilities far beyond his wage, and has not been given the title that equals his responsibility because it would involve jacking him up to 12.00 an hour.(keep in mind california standards of living, 11.38 an hour is not a living wage here) He gets no benefits from the company that are worth buying into, and yet this company is successful on paper, financially, but has a massive turnover rate for people at the lower levels. I believe any company that cannot keep its employees is a badly ran company. It doesn't have to keep them to retirement, but when staying past 6 years is a rarity, something is wrong. I have found that my employer frequently cuts corners on anything that it is not legally obligated to do properly, and thus because the only thing keeping my company from bending its employees over and raping them further is federal and state labor laws, I do not want the groups making these policies to be the ones whispering in the ears of the people running my nation, and thus the people making these regulations.

Keeping the morale and perceptions of your employees and customers maintained pays back massive returns, but you cannot expect for your employees to maintain proper perceptions to customers if they have a low morale due to working for a company that does not compensate them fairly.

Now this doesn't mean that the sheer concept of leadership itself is bad, it means that we are inundated with unqualified and bad leaders at multiple levels. The civilian world has way too many chiefs and not enough Indians, so to speak. A good leader is there to know how his operation is being ran, and to in turn maintain the morale and welfare of the people working for him so that he can feel justified in disciplining them when they do not uphold a reasonable standard of behavior and work ethic. I don't blame a wage slave for having a poor performance and being lazy, but I will feel justified in firing a properly compensated employee for not performing his fairly distributed responsibilities at the drop of a hat.

edited 17th May '11 10:51:36 PM by Barkey

Barkey you work for Securitas? Lol.

Seriously all the stuff you just listed and others have pointed out is what leads to unions. Of all the trades to unionize the Security Guard trade is the next big one coming up.

If they would stop filling their swimming pools with cash, made decent products, followed both letter and spirit of the law, paid and treated employees decently, and in general stopped being such colossal greedy assholes people would not hate them as much.

Has anybody made a movie about the United Fruit Company yet?

Gore Vidal wrote a book.

That's the company that propped up several dictators in the carribeans in the '80's, right?

Yeah now that's the definition of corporate malfeasance.

How many have read "War is a Racket" by Smedly Butler

Other reasons to hate large corporations.

Tea Pot Dome Scandal, Strike Breakers, Pinkerton Agents, and outright violence against workers in the past. With a rise in intimidation of various stripes today.

My personal favorite The Business Plot

I could give some conspiracy folks a an nudge and wink by mentioning Butler died of one of those "Stomach Cancers".

edited 18th May '11 2:04:35 AM by TuefelHundenIV

As an artist I hate corporations because they are only interested in quarterly profits, not advancing entertainment in anyway.

If Corporations were in control we'd never have the Renaissance because it would be too "different"

edited 18th May '11 12:45:03 AM by Thorn14

Edward Bernays wrote the book on Propaganda. No, seriously, the actual book. The rise of giant corporations has it's roots in good PR. Everything else follows.

edited 18th May '11 2:01:36 AM by victorinox243

That is the most fucking stupid statement I have heard in my entire life.

You do realise that Venice, Florence, the Romagna and most of Italy were effectivly mega-corps masquerading as republics right? Half of the Renaissance was brought about by very Rich people showing how cultured they were, whilst the other half was a mix of military engineering and Church products.

Also, YES American corporations are utterly horrifying businesses, they make the East India Company look like the Care bears on more than a few occasions and yet a large segment of America's population really do seem to like them. I know for some it is an ideological thing, but could anyone tell me why they would support them from a purely pragmatic Po V?

Somebody needs to look up what actually happened in the grand rebirth of the ancient.
The filthy rich italians did not just go somewhere and buy the stuff, it started out with private commision of radical things.
There was lots of experimentation, since roughly all artists where privates doing their own things where they was not hired to do a spesific piece.

Yes, but by the same token the "private people" were the equivilent of extraspecially powerful CEO's today. "Corporations" may not produce art but they produce people who want to be seen to be patrons of the arts in huge numbers.

Some of the richest people were mostly merchants of some sort or highly ranked artisans and trade masters. Then add in the old nobility.

edited 18th May '11 4:36:13 AM by TuefelHundenIV

I tolerate corporations if they are organized in such a way to not encourage people to be as greedy and short-sighted as possible. This usually means cooperatives like Mondragon.

What, me bring up this business model again? It's already been a week since I mentioned it in a different thread!