Are Some Multinational Corporations Benevolent?

[Dennis Leahy]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

[Heartsong]

(giggle) I don't believe I could convince you of anything! I'll just put my 2 cents in for perspective.

Corporations are like human beings. A collection of elements sometimes in conflict with itself. Seldom are corporations all bad or all good. Some sort of tip the scales in one direction or another.
They are manned by a collective and lead by a committee and success or failure falls to usually a singular individual paid enough to take a fall if necessary.

I think it's wrong to paint all corporations with the same brush. There are small ones, big ones, ones destined to fail, some well intentioned but poorly run.

You may be thinking of the ones off the New York stock exchange, the ones that have enough capital to sway politics. Multinational corporations are the biggest corporations and have usually a successful (monetary) track record. Would they seem so bad if they backed your candidate, your way of thinking?

Dear Dennis, as your comment reads,you've drawn a line in the sand, taken a boxer's stance. May this thread be a peaceful discourse of peoples' take on multinational corporations rather than a knock down, drag out that gets personal.

[Arrowwind]

I dont know all that much about how corporations are run, especially the multinationals.. but from what Ive seen over the years the bottom line is generally money. They have stock holders to please, they are expansive in their ideology, and most make products that are environmentally unsound, some use slave labor or near equilivant.

Rather than asking if all multinationals are bad or corrupt why not pose the question... does anyone know of a multinational corporation that is environmentally sound, human rights oriented, and promotes just and equitable pay and benefits for employees?

[ulli]

B Corporations

The so-called "benefit corporation" is designed to change this. As of January 1, businesses in California can now organize themselves under the law as benefit corporations, or B corporations, a new legal form that empowers for-profit companies to prioritize social and environmental goals alongside their financial bottom line. Proponents hope the new law will address what many see as the cancer in the modern corporation's DNA: the legal responsibility of its directors to maximize shareholder profits.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/ca...nt?oid=3161490

[Dennis Leahy]

Yes, Heartsong, there is a range of sizes of corporations, all the way down to the tiny little companies with just a few employees - desperately trying to level the playing field and get some of the tax benefits that the giant corporations paid their congressional shills to put into law. That's why I tried to differentiate and not talk about small businesses that have reorganized under a corporate banner to stay alive.

Corporations have a corporate "charter", a specific set of rules that they must adhere to to remain legal as a corporation. This is not something I have studied extensively, but my understanding is that some psychiatrist or psychologist examined the rules of corporate charters and found them to be literally in-line with a diagnosis of sociopathy. "Take no prisoners" kind of mentality. I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively. When I heard about this, it was in reference to a new type of corporate charter, "B corporations", "B" for beneficial, and it is written into their charter (so shareholders know in advance) that profit is not the only motive, that they will pursue both profits and be beneficial. Maybe it is altruistic BS, maybe a ruse for tax advantages or to hide more from shareholders - or maybe it really is a much more sane way to legally declare a corporation.

However, I'm willing to bet that in the "Fortune 500" (top 500 corporations), none of them are "B" corporations. So, they are all set up on that sociopathic charter. Yes, corporations are the assemblage of perhaps thousands of people, from the janitorial staff to the CEO. Not everyone who works in a corporation - even an evil one - is evil. But if the overall actions of the corporation ARE evil, then the board is composed of at least 51% people who are evil or who acquiesce to evil.

The electoral system in the US is controlled by Big Media and the two Big Parties, which are in turn both controlled by Big Money (the biggest corporations.) The US electoral system, unmasked, is Big Money selecting two pro-corporate candidates, then Big Money assuring the victory of one or the other through (Big Money-owned) Big Media.

Lobbying, or "legalized bribery", is routinely used by these corporations to get legislation passed that is corporate-centric.

They have become so good at the control of the electoral system and in getting corporate-centric legislation passed that now, pretty much anything the giant corporations want to do, they can do legally.

Arrowwind, I think the best example of a corporation like that was Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream (before they sold the company.) So, it's not impossible to run a corporation beneficially, but those examples will never be found in the mega-corporations, the multinational or supranational corporations.

Dennis

{edit} I see that Ulli beat me to the punch on B corporations. I type too slowly! hahahaaha

[Tangri]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

Huh!
First ;you need to re define the word of "corporate"
Secondly; if you find assumed benevolent one you need to check their policy and procedures booklet.
Third; benevolent for whom, for workers, for rest of the population, or for upper level managements.

[DevilPigeon]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)
I dont know all that much about how corporations are run, especially the multinationals.. but from what Ive seen over the years the bottom line is generally money. They have stock holders to please, they are expansive in their ideology, and most make products that are environmentally unsound, some use slave labor or near equilivant.

Rather than asking if all multinationals are bad or corrupt why not pose the question... does anyone know of a multinational corporation that is environmentally sound, human rights oriented, and promotes just and equitable pay and benefits for employees?

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds... I'd suspect that no matter what organisation you approached, they'd all say they're concerned about the environment, treat their workers right etc, and in fact these very same organisations have a very public persona that backs these claims up. I think that to get a more realistic answer, you'd need to approach the workers themselves (when I say workers, I mean the people that actually do the work, not the public-facing high-ups that get stupid money and toe the company line).

Bottom line is that examining any organisation from the outside, you'll no doubt get a rosy picture that - taking a holistic view of organisations in general - doesn't balance out the state of the world we currently live in.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by DevilPigeon (here)
[ I think that to get a more realistic answer, you'd need to approach the workers themselves (when I say workers, I mean the people that actually do the work, not the public-facing high-ups that get stupid money and toe the company line).

.

what ever it takes to get to the truth. Many corporations have been looked at in type of manner... its how we findout that some are dirty dealers.
I do think that there are a few with honest good standing that I have come across but i cant say that I can name them at this time.
I just dont track on this stuff that much.

[ThePythonicCow]

Corporations are "eternal" in that they don't die after a few decades of activity. Corporations are immoral, in that they don't feel shame or guilt. They are immune to imprisonment. They have gained some substantial legal advantages over the years, as the wealthiest "robber barons" used their power and wealth to increase the legal power of corporations (as one example, in the US, corporations can donate unlimited funds to Presidential campaigns, but individuals cannot, if I understand the law correctly.)

But they are controlled by mortal humans. Given their extra powers, the most power hungry mortals tend to gravitate to the tops of larger corporations.

Corporations have become worse than weapons of mass destruction. They have become weapons of civilization destruction.

[The Arthen]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

Agreed.

There are actually many folks with the financial capacity to spend money in their own unique way. Some prefer to take a private plane to a beautiful place. Some plan to skydive with a guide around 24/7. Some buy even more 'computers' to ease their daily workload....so many reasons.

But then again, every big corporation always says it's for good, and it's difficult to measure their true value at a handful of impressions.

[Wind]

I stumbled upon this documentary. Seems interesting.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw

Here is the trailer for it (it's a long documentary):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE

[Rich]

Large corporations are more likely to reflect the average human consciousness so it is very unlikely to find a very large ''B'' company. Not to mention that a beneficial company wouldn't even be allowed to become big.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I think there is little more that is as scary as competitive evil.
Not only do the corps compete with each other for profit, they have to resort to more and more evil tactics to stay competitive, like for example sweat shops.

Microsoft's gov't gateway campaign, for example, reminds me of the evil corporation from Sandra Bullock's THE NET.
You remember how insidious those guys were? Changing medical records etc.

Another thing: people get lost for real following their own thoughts and dreams to their ends.
You notice that most evil is born in thought not in dreams. the gods don't make us do evil, we think of it ourselves.



Read please about lateral networking. it's how all the corps are skirting the laws in all these countries and planning their evil deeds LOL

Microsoft CEO summit for example.

BAE BP collusion in killing Gaddafi.

etc

[T Smith]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

My own personal understanding is that what we see at play is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It's not just about sociopathic greed, and even your second possibility, i.e. ignorance of ecology and humanity likely applies at some level. Some multinational corporations -- at least the mid-level and even some higher-up level executives who drive the company -- truly believe they are acting for the betterment of humanity, as misguided and "conveniently" ignorant they be. For example, 60% of the municipalities across the nation who are poisoning the water supplies with fluoride do so because they believe fluoride is beneficial to the public health. They aren't poisoning the water because they are monsters. There is certainly an element of unbridled, sociopathic greed that is necessary to the equation, so you are quite right. But I would posit that this element isn't the driving force; it is but an asset of the driving force. Greed is an asset of Power. If you want to accomplish "X", whatever "X" might be, then employ sociopaths who will do anything and everything to make money by producing "X", and, as a director of operations, you will achieve "X" as your end product. Hitler, the sociopathic monster he was, deliberately poisoned the water supply with fluoride to render his subjects docile and passive. As a dictator, in a totalitarian regime, he accomplished this objective by decree. TPTB, who maintain the same objectives, accomplish not by decree (which is why is it is so hard to decry "conspiracy!"), but much more cleverly by employing the cloaked mechanisms of greed to carry out their tasks and deeds. Hence, money and greed drive the process of turing a profit from toxic waste removal at phosphate mines, which ultimately produces the fluoride that poisons our water supply, complete with all the investment/return on PR, lobbying, indoctrination campaigns, and selling the populous on the product and idea that poison is actually good for them. The same dynamic is afoot with GMOs, aspartame, Big Pharma, etc., etc. Those who make money in this process, the shareholders, the executives, perhaps even some of the board of directors, could care less if they are poisoning their own grandchildren who drink the water and take their meds. They care about $. And most of them probably think they are doing a service to humanity. The progenitors who setup the system, however, the foundations, the social engineers, the think tanks, the so-called "philanthropists" who already have more money than God, and for whom money means nothing because they can even create it out of thin air if necessary, know full well that they are poisoning the masses. They have an entirely different objective from greed and don't do it for money. Their agenda is power and control. Therein is the "evil" component. The corporations are merely tools to them.

[modwiz]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

My own personal understanding is that what we see at play is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It's not just about sociopathic greed, and even your second possibility, i.e. ignorance of ecology and humanity likely applies at some level. Some multinational corporations -- at least the mid-level and even some higher-up level executives who drive the company -- truly believe they are acting for the betterment of humanity, as misguided and "conveniently" ignorant they be. For example, 60% of the municipalities across the nation who are poisoning the water supplies with fluoride do so because they believe fluoride is beneficial to the public health. They aren't poisoning the water because they are monsters. There is certainly an element of unbridled, sociopathic greed that is necessary to the equation, so you are quite right. But I would posit that this element isn't the driving force; it is but an asset of the driving force. Greed is an asset of Power. If you want to accomplish "X", whatever "X" might be, then employ sociopaths who will do anything and everything to make money by producing "X", and, as a director of operations, you will achieve "X" as your end product. Hitler, the sociopathic monster he was, deliberately poisoned the water supply with fluoride to render his subjects docile and passive. As a dictator, in a totalitarian regime, he accomplished this objective by decree. TPTB, who maintain the same objectives, accomplish not by decree (which is why is it is so hard to decry "conspiracy!"), but much more cleverly by employing the cloaked mechanisms of greed to carry out their tasks and deeds. Hence, money and greed drive the process of turing a profit from toxic waste removal at phosphate mines, which ultimately produces the fluoride that poisons our water supply, complete with all the investment/return on PR, lobbying, indoctrination campaigns, and selling the populous on the product and idea that poison is actually good for them. The same dynamic is afoot with GMOs, aspartame, Big Pharma, etc., etc. Those who make money in this process, the shareholders, the executives, perhaps even some of the board of directors, could care less if they are poisoning their own grandchildren who drink the water and take their meds. They care about $. And most of them probably think they are doing a service to humanity. The progenitors who setup the system, however, the foundations, the social engineers, the think tanks, the so-called "philanthropists" who already have more money than God, and for whom money means nothing because they can even create it out of thin air if necessary, know full well that they are poisoning the masses. They have an entirely different objective from greed and don't do it for money. Their agenda is power and control. Therein is the "evil" component. The corporations are merely tools to them.

Thanks Eaglespirit, you saved me from having to write this. This addresses the many layers of this questions. I was simply going to put the word, "shareholders" as a meditation. They can act like viral influences. I mean viral as in a virus and not the internet meaning. Like viruses, shareholders influence the DNA of any company. Like any parasite they want as much from the host as possible. Even down to killing it and selling off the parts to "science", LOL.

[SKAWF]

when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.

there were a couple of dutch guys (i think) who calculated that
there is a hub of about 400 super duper corporations,

which own the next 1400 biggest corps.......

and you know that if there is benevolent soul amongst them, that would have been seen as a weakness by now....

so where in all that it there room for a good multinational to exist?

so.... no. i reckon they are all bad.

[gripreaper]

The answer is NO.

Corporations are entities created in fiction, are psychopathic, sociopathic, parasitical, imperialistic, and cancerous, they cater to greed and profit; they have no soul or heart, and cannot be rendered benevolent by anything. They will eat their own young to survive and thrive.

So, NO. None, zilch, nada, zero....

[modwiz]

Posted by SKAWF (here)
when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.

there were a couple of dutch guys (i think) who calculated that
there is a hub of about 400 super duper corporations,

which own the next 1400 biggest corps.......

and you know that if there is benevolent soul amongst them, that would have been seen as a weakness by now....

so where in all that it there room for a good multinational to exist?

so.... no. i reckon they are all bad.

You are right. Building something successful takes creativity, hard work and good customer relations, something the parasites lack entirely. So, they let human beings do all of the things that are necessary to bring something to market and create a positive buzz about it, they then swoop in and buy it to suck it dry. Something designed to bring something of value to customers and allow the employees to make a living is turned into a machine that wants to make a killing.

I have used these two phrases before in juxtaposition, making a living and making a killing. I like to use it when apologists for corporate sociopaths want to explain that making a profit is not evil. The usual lack of nuance prevails. Making a living from a corporation is not aberrant, making a killing is.

[donk]

Where there are "shareholders", there is OWNERSHIP, which is the most parasitic/predatory/selfish/anti-life idea for any type of communal being

By definition, corporations are created entities with responsibility only to shareholders (which interestingly can also be corporations). How's that for "intent"? Not a lot of room for benevolence IMO

[DevilPigeon]

Posted by SKAWF (here)
when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.

there were a couple of dutch guys (i think) who calculated that
there is a hub of about 400 super duper corporations,

which own the next 1400 biggest corps.......

and you know that if there is benevolent soul amongst them, that would have been seen as a weakness by now....

so where in all that it there room for a good multinational to exist?

so.... no. i reckon they are all bad.

Your first paragraph reminded me of a couple of "ethical" companies bought out by some large players - 'Green and Blacks', manufacturers of organic chocolate (bought out by Cadburys) & 'Innocent', makers of 100% fruit smoothies (bought out by Coca Cola)...

I think both purchasing companies claimed not to interfere in the ongoing running of the respective purchased company, whether this is the case or not I don't know... But it makes you wonder.

The insidious thing to me is that unless you investigate or look for any fine print, you'd never know these formerly small [ethical] companies were now part of a global parent brand.