posted January 20, 2004 11:52 AM            

While the corporation has the rights and responsibilities of ”a legal person”, its owners and shareholders are not liable for its actions. Moreover, the film explains, a corporation's directors are legally required to do what is best for the company, regardless of the harm created.

What kind of person would a corporation be? A clinical psychopath, answers the documentary, which is now playing in four Canadian theatres.

”Everything we do in the world is touched by corporations in some way,” says 'The Corporation' writer Joel Bakan.

Six years ago he was researching a book on the subject and teamed up with documentary makers Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, and then set out to drum up enough money to make the film and to do more than 40 interviews.

”Corporations are the most dominant institutions on the planet today. We thought it was worth taking a close look at what that means,” Bakan told IPS.

In law, today's corporations are treated like a person: they can buy and sell property, have the right to free expression and most other rights that individuals have.

This legal creativity came as a result of U.S. businesses using the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- designed to protect blacks in the U.S. South after the Civil War -- to proclaim that corporations should be treated as ”persons”.

The filmmakers show four examples of corporations at work -- including garment sweatshops in Honduras and Indonesia -- to demonstrate that this ”legal person” is inherently amoral, callous and deceitful.

The corporation, the film points out, ignores any social and legal standards to get its way, and does not suffer from guilt while mimicking the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism.

A person with those character traits would be categorized as a psychopath, based on diagnostic criteria from the World Health Organization (WHO), points out the film.

Unlike 'Bowling for Columbine' -- to which it has been compared -- 'The Corporation' does not follow a shambling yet crusading interviewer (Michael Moore) into corporate head offices to ask tough questions.

Instead the filmmakers use simple but beautifully lit head and shoulder shots of its subjects against a black background. The interviewer is never seen or heard; the corporate chiefs, professors and activists speak directly to the viewer.

The technique is so compelling that not listening or turning away would seem impolite.

The interviews are interspersed with archival footage from many sources, including scenes from sweatshops and news conferences. It also includes some ironic and darkly humorous excerpts from corporate ad campaigns and training films from the 1940s and '50s.

But the film is not a rant. It gives ample time to corporate chief executive officers (CEOs) and representatives of right-wing organizations, like Canada's Fraser Institute.

Fraser's Michael Walker tells viewers that hungry people in the developing world are better off when a sweatshop pays them 10 cents an hour to make brand name goods that sell for hundreds of dollars.

And it is just good business sense that a corporation moves to seek out more hungry people when its workers demand higher wages and better working conditions, Walker argues.

Many others are less ruthless. Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, is honestly concerned about protecting the environment. Under his guidance, Shell adopted many green initiatives and a commitment to developing renewable energy.

At the same time, Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other activists were hung in Nigeria for protesting Shell Oil's pollution of the Niger Delta.

Social critic and linguist Noam Chomsky -- the subject of Achbar's 1992 award-winning 'Manufacturing Consent' -- carefully points out that people who work for corporations, and even those who run them, are often very nice people.

The same could have been said about many slave owners, he observes. The institution -- not the people -- is the problem, Chomsky argues.

Eminent economist Milton Friedman sums up the role of the corporation succinctly: it creates jobs and wealth but is inherently incapable of dealing with the social consequences of its actions.

'The Corporation' documents a bewildering array of these consequences -- including the deaths of citizens who protest corporate ownership of their water in Cochabamba, Bolivia -- that demonstrate the extent and power of today's corporations.

It looks at the often-cozy relationships between corporations and fascist regimes, such as that of IBM and Nazi leader Adolph Hitler.

It demonstrates the power of advertising to create desires for luxury items, as well as how corporations can suppress information.

The documentary shows agribusiness corporation Monsanto successfully preventing the news media from airing a story about the potential health hazards of a genetically engineered drug given to many U.S. diary cows.

'The Corporation' also tells a number of success stories, including activists' successful fight to overturn corporate patents on the neem tree and basmati rice.

Bolivia's Oscar Olivera describes how citizens of Cochabamba city re-took control of their water. The lesson, he explains, is the people's capacity for ”reflection, rage and rebellion” as an effective counter to corporate globalization

That is one of the film's messages, says Bakan. ”We want people to understand that they can change things.”

”Everyone keeps thanking us for making the film,” says Mark Achbar, from the Sundance festival of independent films in Utah state.

”People are fed up with being talked down to and enjoy being intellectually engaged,” he adds, trying to explain the documentary's popularity and several international festival awards.

Despite its current limited distribution in Canada, 'The Corporation' has been sold as a three-part, one-hour TV series to international markets, and Achbar is hoping it will be translated into Spanish.

Of course, there will not be a multi-million marketing campaign. The number of people who will see it will depend on those who have, spreading the word.

That is just one way to take back the power that corporations have usurped.

-------------------------------------------

posted January 20, 2004 12:38 PM              

Answering only to your stockholders, who in turn care only for profits...well, put 2 and 2 together. Profits are nice sure, but at what cost? I suppose some will read this and say, "what's the big deal, it's just good old American capitalism". But a democracy (ok, ok a republic) is not, nor should it be, a plutocracy. Now there is an ugly word. So much power in the hands of so few. VERY unAmerican. I resent being thought of as a consumer, rather than a citizen.

posted January 21, 2004 01:03 PM            

I wonder how long it will take America to realize that corporations should NOT have all the same rights as people. I mean, until people get to LIVE FOREVER, an advantage that the corporation has on actual humans, then they should not get to share in the same rights as a human.

posted September 24, 2004 07:49 PM              

Anyone?..................Anyone???..........................Bueller????

posted September 24, 2004 08:09 PM              

And Tink, you had made a comment about there being so much power in the hands of so few. I don't disagree with you here. But I think that due to the fact that most people do not understand finance and investing (which is actually quite simple - and believe me I'm not a real math person, even though I majored in economics), they are at a disadvantage and in a position to remain one of the "majority" (ie- one of the disadvantaged, monetarily speaking). We could all be part of the "few" and turn that "few" into the "majority" if we were properly taught how to handle our own hard earned money. But for SOME reason, they never teach us this in school.
My father, who never made a lot of money working his regular job, took out some books when he started a young family and learned how to read all sorts of financial statements, researched a few companies and saved his hard earned money to eventually open an investment account. In just over 15 years, his returns are in the millions.......Literally. He is no different from you or I. He did not go to Harvard or any fancy, expensive school. He is not particularly the one you might think of as the "brightest" of the bunch, but he has a natural curiosity to learn about things and he is also very patient and persistent. He is also not greedy. He is not after money for money's sake. We could all benefit from investing but unfortunately, whether purposely or not, we are kept in the dark about how to properly go about making this happen and are instead taught to rely on the (let's face it) LESS than reputable stock brokers who have very little interests but their own at heart. That's another thing: my father never trusted those brokers and made all his own deals without taking any of their input into consideration. He was right to do so. Many times (as evidenced after the fact) they gave him the worst advice. We have been brainwashed into thinking that only other people are qualified enough to make decisions with our money! It's not true! A typical 8th grader, if given the right tools, could be raking in the dough by age 25-30.

posted September 27, 2004 08:42 PM              

I guess I just disagree. I think that some resources ARE unlimited but that we just have not harnessed the energy to make them so at this point. I also think that unlimited growth is possible. And in the worst case scenario, if planet Earth ever becomes uninhabitable, I think that the universe is infinite and that one day we will be able to populate other planets and other galaxies. Who knows, maybe one day we will be able to create pseudo-ecosystems ourselves! I think that the world is limitless and that possibilities are endless. You know that saying "Worlds without end"? I truly believe it. We need to do is explore the great beyond.

posted September 27, 2004 11:59 PM              

Mmm, directly, yes. But then we have Wal-Mart, who buys its products through factories run by what amounts to slave labor in China, which means that the Wal-Mart corporation (Sam's or whatever it's called) indirectly supports such practices.

All the wonderful things that you can stand up and say to defend corporations ("some of the largest contributors to charitable organizations") are just window-dressing. Misdirection. Look at this; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Sorry, I can't be so easily bought off.

The problem is not with the idea of a corporation in itself. The problem is one of scale. The "larger" a single entity becomes, the smaller and more insignificant its component parts become in its eyes. What does Sam Walton (or whoever runs the show) know about the life and cares of Bob, the guy who collects the shopping carts from the parking lot? Not a thing, I assure you. And what does he care? Again, not a thing. I can assure you. That attitude has become so commonplace that I doubt many reading this will see the point I'm making. But if you think hard enough, and open your heart enough, you will see it. No one's life - or any significant part of it - should be controlled by apathetic strangers. That is the opposite of the loving world that Jesus Christ and Linda Goodman - and myself and many others - wait for to come into being. The larger a single entity becomes, the smaller and more insignificant its component parts become. And everything else around it, too. What does Wal-Mart care that it is putting any and everyone else around it out of business to feed its own greed? Not a thing, I can assure you. Might makes right, eh? (Note: in this present world, the dollar is might -- not guns or strong arms.) Is that the principle you would defend? Is that the justification you would use for these behemoth companies to steamroller over everything in their path?

What we need is a return to simplicity, and to smaller things. We need to tend our own gardens, own our own businesses. The idea of massing giant forces -- for any purpose: commerce, war -- has gone too far. Our essential humanity is being lost; everything is done on such a large scale now that in order to keep track of us, we have all been reduced to numbers and data in someone's machine.

If you can't see the essential truth of what I'm saying, well, I'm sorry. I can't open your eyes. I don't get bogged down and sidetracked and run off into tangents by petty details. Keep your statistics and your news clips and your facts. It doesn't take a government or economic analyst to look out at the big picture of life and recognize a trend that is hurting every individual on the planet.

posted September 28, 2004 12:56 PM            

Yes, quiksilver, I am saying that the entire world cannot live by the material standards of the US middle class. (NOtice I did not say as "well" as the middle class. I don't think most people in this country are truly happy. I think they largely have some kind of spiritual emptyness inside because of the materialist lifestyles that our society pushes like a drug. Not to mention the junk that passes for food- strange chemical concoctions from a lab.. not the sort of thing that promotes health- physical, spiritual and mental.)
The earth cannot - absolutely cannot support such a thing. I do not buy into the big lie that earth's resources are unlimited and that we just need to wait around for the next great technological "fix". That is a big old pile of horseshite, IMO. That is the line we've been fed for a long time now and everytime a new technology arrives it inevitably brings with it a slew of problems that we need more technology to fix. It's like a fecking hampster wheel. No thank you, I want off, please.

We are also fed the line that some day we will find new worlds to inhabit as soon as this one is worn out. That is the most horrific thing I have ever heard. This planet created me. It's in my blood and my bones and I have no desire to pick up and move on once we've raped our mother entirely and completely. Are we going to "discover" a new planet, even though it may very likely already have inhabitants? Much like we "discovered" the Americas, right? I have little doubt that the outcome would be the same. We would massacre whatever life forms we find there, bleed that planet dry and move on to the next, right? It's utter madness.

I used to buy into all this star trek fantasy crud too but once I began studying ecology, agriculture and indigenous worldviews the insanity of it became quite apparent. I would daresay that a majority of the world's population finds the idea of unlimited growth at the expense of the health of our ecosystems abhorrent too and it's not fair that a minority of the population drags the rest of the planet along without any say in the matter.

posted September 28, 2004 03:43 PM              

She said "fecking"

posted September 29, 2004 03:26 PM              

quote:

---

What we need is a return to simplicity, and to smaller things. We need to tend our own gardens, own our own businesses. The idea of massing giant forces -- for any purpose: commerce, war -- has gone too far. Our essential humanity is being lost; everything is done on such a large scale now that in order to keep track of us, we have all been reduced to numbers and data in someone's machine.

---

I really think it's time for people to let go of the olden days where every single person is a farmer, lives on basic needs, and minds there own business. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER AND THEY'RE NEVER COMING BACK. It's time to look ahead and realize the next step for humanity. The next BIG step is to become a unified GLOBAL FORCE for the new SPACE AGE just waiting around the corner. This world is getting smaller and smaller, and people are getting antsy. We won't be separate countries anymore, but of course everyone will have their own culture. This will be ONE WORLD, where all people will be able to travel in to space, and meet those brothers and sisters from different planets. This will be the NEW WORLD, the old world in which we exist now is either dying or is dead, and we are expanding as people. Rest assured that these corporations will be brought to justice, eventually, because they are harming people, but in no way should we even think of stopping their expansion. How about this, let nature take care of itself, if it gets mad it will tell you, and destroy anyone not listening and hurting the land. You can't speak for nature, nature speaks for itself.

posted September 30, 2004 02:45 AM            

I have more to say but I need to ruminate abit, lest I speak too rashly. I see things quite differently.. nevertheless, I understand where you both are coming from quiksilver and Starlover; I felt quite similar to you when I was younger. I am, afterall, a die hard Trekker and Star Wars fan.

posted September 30, 2004 04:11 AM              

"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there."
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . . "
- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937

the fact is we have no real means of traveling to other planets, and how would we treat our brothers and sisters there?
the same way we treat each other?....

natures way is to build to a crisis then sweep away the weakest creatures with indifference to who or what "caused" it...
there are those who frame their whole philosophy around that fact......

posted September 30, 2004 09:28 AM              

quote:

---

...but there WILL be a crisis, and it would be wise to consider how YOUR community(or just your family) would survive such a crisis......

---