The good corporation is a myth because their sole purpose it to make profits. They have no soul, they have no children, although they like to brainwash their employees into thinking they should be loyal to a "family".
The problem isn't so much that corporations exist, and have no morals - the problem is the government gives them immunity that people don't have to, for instance, pollute the commons.
If I went over to your yard and dumped toxic waste in it, I'd be arrested. If corporations dump toxic waste into the air, they get away with it.
We need strong regulations, but people got so taken in with that "regulations kills jobs" garbage that they have supported policies and politicians for decades that have unleashed untold numbers of poisonous chemicals into the environment.
Malthus was right, of course. He simply couldn't have predicted the "green revolution" which has fueled exponential and unsustainable population growth and which is about to expire, for a lack of water for crops if nothing else. There is no technological fix for using up all the resources, including the ability of the ecosystem to absorb our pollution.
Aside from the mathematical impossibility of endless growth on a finite planet, the notion of "social justice" embraced by OWS implies that people should have access to equally-sized portions of the pie. For the past 500 years western civilization has thrived and expanded by exploiting the labor and raw materials garbage-receiving capacity of the third world, and continues to do so.
So, a questions is which bit of our slice do we want to share with the other people who haven't had any pie at all, pretty much.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Doug Singsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Which corporations are the ones that don't abuse the system? Do they actually exist or is the idea of the "good corporation" just a myth?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Sebastian Fernandez Giraldo <email@example.com>
To echo guindave, Gabriel, and Aaron, some of us are not against every corporation, just against the ones that abuse the system to gain an advantage and provide little or no contribution to society. We are also working towards making the production of these goods and services more sustainable. So no, using iPhones etc is not against what we are trying to do.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Aaron Gemmill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
one important way for industrial economy to advance would be a radical shift toward sustainable production. there are many obstacles to this, but science isn't one of them.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:23 PM, gail zawacki <email@example.com>
It's based on science.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, J.A. Myerson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
That is an unbelievably reactionary position to take.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, gail zawacki <email@example.com>
Charles, I have a suspicion that "advanced industrial economy that is sustainable" involves an oxymoron.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Charles <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Do not be Luddites. We want an advanced industrial economy. We just
want it to be ever more democratic and sustainable, until we have the
kind of modern society that actually has a chance of prosperous
survival, rather than what we have now.
On Oct 18, 11:34 am, Harrison Schultz <schuh...@gmail.com
> Woah, this article about the Adbusters largest private donor
> - stockbroker backer Robert S. Halper supports my point. It seems as if
> members of the 1%, class traitors, god bless them have been helping us all
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Harrison Schultz <schuh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > I agree with the sentiments about using the tools of the system against the
> > system and this is in fact what I've been attempting to do since before day
> > one of this movement, as this leak and deliberate misinterpretation of a
> > personal email I sent Micah White will verify...
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Jon Good <therealjong...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > I would point out as someone who works in the marketing/advertising
> > industry while supporting this movement that many of the most scathing and
> > damning critiques of the system come from individuals who actually work
> > within the system. I've met several radicals specifically within the
> > advertising industry who repress their beliefs just enough in order to work
> > and support their families. I've met plenty of business leaders, although
> > not necessarily anyone from the 1%, who support what we are doing such as my
> > current boss and mentor as well as my former mentor who has actually taken
> > the time to visit me at camp several times now.
> > The traditional battle lines between labor and capital no longer apply. If
> > we are serious about facilitating an actual revolution which I know we all
> > are then I would argue that it is vital to seize the most cutting edge means
> > of production especially if they happen to have been developed in some cases
> > by truly amoral corporations. I think it's also important not to alienate,
> > but to ally ourselves with our supporters from the business world. I
> > further believe along those same lines that it's important for those of us
> > who are able to do so to actually earn and "occupy" key positions and exert
> > our influence precisely within those companies we would most like to see
> > transformed if not obliterated because I believe that it's naive and wishful
> > to assume that they'll change themselves as a direct result of any of our
> > resentful rantings.
> > Hypocrisy is only a problem for puritans not for revolutionaries.
> > In solidarity,
> > Harrison
> >> Sparkles to that, Lauren. It's another insidious thing corporations
> >> do, having a fictional entity take credit for the work of actual
> >> people.
> >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Lauren <celli...@gmail.com
> >> > I'll also note that cellular and wireless communications are pretty
> >> > damn essential to areas with limited physical infrastructure.