Money is not evil.
Power is not eveil.
What I'm saying is that corporations are evil, because they manipulate these elements of "self-interest" in an evil context.
Money becomes evil, when in the corporate context, because the prospect of wealth is held above any ethical, environmental, or political necessities. Power becomes evil in the corporate context, because it too is manipulated to influence politics, not to bolster the constitutional values of political necessity, but to benefit them(the corporations) financially. This blur of ideals can be disasterous.
Also, I'm not trying to say that the rich are the evil and the poor are the innocent. What I am intending to say is that the economic and sociological fabric is oriented in such a way that this division is almost inescapable. The capitalist society is deterministic in that:
Success is measured by wealth, and wealth is acheived by holding the prospect of wealth over ethical values.
To shun and deny support for the corporate world in any way never reaps success, for success must mean wealth- and for this, there is no financial incentive.
Simply put, the corporate world has expanded so incredibly that the only way to benefit economically is to join in the "evil" and to disregard ethics and attune focuse on financial gain. To refuse to comply with this is to fail in society, because, once more, success is financial gain. To support a corporation is inescapable, and as I have said, a boycott or large scale demonstration would never and has never worked. The only way to win is to join the corporations, and play by their rules. We can only defeat them with propaganda, as they have defeated "us" (the anti-corporatists or people who do not comply with the corporatist ethical code, which is the ethics of ethical disregard). To succeed you need to play by their rules, and to "defeat" them you must too play by their rules. Corporate control is inescapable.
The only thing that would fundamentally awaken the world and influence a shift in the economic order would not be an activist movement, but some serious environmental disaster brought about by corporate disregard.
In my former post, I have listed what I believe to be a faint insinuation at a solution. It is what I would consider a "first draft", and still a sketch of a new economic fabric.
all in the context that capitalism or corporations are responsible for racism.. That is an outrageous claim Sam, I am not at all accusing corporations for racism. I was simply using that in reference to Ed's comment on Texaco. What I meant to say (which it seems I stated too bluntly), is that corporations uphold a reputation not for the moralistic appeal of a reputation, but of the increased consumerism from such a reputation.
What I'm worried about is that corporations are building false reputations. A corporation can donate to a cancer society, for example, and then in the same year impose cancer on a new gamut of people by cutting the money put into food examination (if the corporation is a restaurant,). Sam, this claim, unlike the "racism claim" which was misinterpreted, can be entirely supported by factual data. The corporate disregard for sanitation, combined with hiding such discrminating evidence or by working just above the "sanitary line" to save a profit, is a practice all ready in place at all levels of corporate extremity.
Consider this, too, when on the case of corporate disregard: sweatshops. It is entirely plausible and extremely practical to set up sweatshops in developing, povertry-stricken third world countries. It saves a massive profit and is incredibly expedient. And this is what success has come to mean in the corporate world: a boosted profit. And, hear this, the most successful companies in the world employ such method, and continue to reign successful in the corporate market even when this ethical abuse becoms apparent. Its just that the movement to publicize these depravities is a unsucessful endeavor. To repeat myself, there is no financial incentive in such an exploit. And, to repeat myself once more, this bit of information would have to compete with a multi-billion doller marketing arena in order to win the prize: the consumers. And that's why it can't work; why would consumers by anti-activist material over a brilliantly advertised product?
Furthermore, Sam, I find it quite silly that you are constantly alluding to "things that are erroneous in this rambling generalization", yet you only list one, which you claim is the "worst." In my opinion, it was simply a misinterpretation. I'm not hoping to invoke a feud of sorts, but please, do not dramatize "erroneous things" that you hasten even to list or mention. I find that a very unsuccessful debate tactic, and is not assisting in your case. I can understand how you hold strong views on this issue, as is the objectivist philosophy, but I wish you would list them, instead of dramatizing their undisclosed existence.
I understand this quote, but I believe I have circumvented this paradox. I do not hope to reinstate a less free system, but rather a free system under a minimal control. What I'm trying to do is not to shift ownership, but to tighten the legalities as to discourage unlawful, unethical, or un-environmental abuses.
In my opinion, this is still free, and significantly less dangerous.