In doing so, they wrongly insist that corporations somehow push us rightward, apparently opening up trade and opportunity unimposed upon by government. I agree to a certain extent, but if our ultimate goal is a satisfying culture, of which steady employment is usually a component, then perhaps we should view corporations a bit more skeptically. In essence, corporations have no national loyalty and follow where the (liberal) cultural wind blows. They want money, that's it. As I've argued many times before, a strong, conservative cultural backbone must exist or else greed, sex, and other motivations will take over.
So what happens when you allow big corporations lots of freedom in conjunction with a zeitgeist that promotes liberal values?
AT&T is lining up support for its acquisition of T-Mobile from a slew of liberal groups with no obvious interest in telecom deals — except that they’ve received big piles of AT&T’s cash. In recent weeks, the NAACP, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the National Education Association have each issued public statements in support of the deal.So AT&T has a history of giving money to leftist groups and then gets these groups' considerable clout when needed. Once again, the corporate/leftist monster rears its head. But if our culture was strongly conservative, such displays of leftism would find opposition amongst most consumers. Corporations couldn't get away with transparently liberal displays and the primary motivation, making money, would be null.
“For decades, AT&T has proudly supported numerous diverse groups and organizations,” a company spokesperson told POLITICO.
The NAACP was one of the first groups to announce public support of the T-Mobile acquisition. It received a $1 million contribution from AT&T in 2009 and has received funding in the six figures dating to 2006, according to the group’s annual reports.
AT&T’s record of corporate giving is widely touted by recipients, many of whom cite the company’s extensive record on promoting minorities, women, schools and the arts. But some public interest groups question whether the company is cashing in on its status as one of the country’s biggest corporate donors.
The Columbia Urban League received a $25,000 grant from the AT&T Foundation in 2009 to provide “underserved populations with resources to help their children achieve academic success,” according to the foundation’s IRS Form 990.
In the end, I don't know whether to boycott these places or to accept some level of government intrusion to undermine leftist corporations. Unfortunately, government would probably be even worse.
18 comments:
I don't know whether to boycott these places or to accept some level of government intrusion to undermine leftist corporations.
Government intrusion is not going to undermine leftist corporations. Corporations regard government as a good thing, not a bad thing. Corporations want government power used to shape the competitive, legal, and regulatory environment in their favor. Having to employ a bunch of worthless NAMs in the HR department is a small price to pay for the benefits a corporation receives from the government
Speaking of which did you hear about the McDonald's prank where someone posted a racist (i.e., the real definition of the word) signs on their doors? Knowing the stigma against racism and how people have been persecuted for being far less "racist" I immediately knew it was a hoax upon hearing about it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/fake-racist-mcdonalds-twitpic-enrages-tweeps-2297169.html
Furthermore, McDonald's knows that it wouldn't be smart to offend one of their largest demographics.
“ I agree to a certain extent, but if our ultimate goal is a satisfying culture, of which steady employment is usually a component, then perhaps we should view corporations a bit more skeptically."
However, corporations greatly contribute to and define culture. As long as there is a target market for such goods and services, there will be those goods and services available for consumption.
Nevertheless, you're correct in noting that corporations try to deviate from their intended tasks and try to serve some specious "common good", even at the expense of the shareholders whom they have an obligation to serve. One would think that the creation of goods and services that everyone either wants and/or needs plus job creation serves the common good enough.
Corporations must:
1. Remove executives who are undermining the company's value by diverting funds into ideology-driven projects (oftentimes under an "externality" pretense) rather than productive efforts.
2. Realign philosophy and mission statement around profit oriented principles.
3. Implement specific actions meant to restore short-range and long-range profit growth.
Certain executives should also stop protecting and supporting the politicians, clergy, and journalists who actively undermine capitalism.
Capitalism works because it is consistent with people's individualistic and competitive nature and is a primary means of being happy and a motive to produce.
"I don't know whether to boycott these places or to accept some level of government intrusion to undermine leftist corporations."
This is where the Right must learn its flexibility of principle to be able to defeat this monster. It does no good to support property rights and free enterprise if the result is companies like AT&T working to undermine everything built.
AT&T and GE represent what I call a "left-wing commercial interest." A Left-wing commercial interest is any economic interests that donates disproportionate amounts of money to democrat or left-wing causes. Once such an entity is identified, the Right needs to do whatever it can to drive it out of business, or to have it pay a heavy price for its incorrect thinking.
The best way to do this is to manufacture a populist argument (borrow from the left)that somehow undermines the business.
Jay M -
"However, corporations greatly contribute to and define culture. As long as there is a target market for such goods and services, there will be those goods and services available for consumption."
Whatever. Once the company has produced this, the infrastructure is in place and can then be transferred to a more friendly corporate entity.
"the mainstream's defiance regarding criticism of big corporations is part of their frustrating adherence to the proposition nation."
I don't see it as adherence to the proposition.
When I read the Bill of Rights, it is all about prohibiting gov't shakedowns at the point of a gun. The reason that AT&T gives to these groups may not be that they love them, rather that these groups have friends in the judiciary that will give their grievance the force of a gov't shakedown.
This reminds me of something I have been trying to write a full guest post on for some time:
Is it proper to call today's left the left?
Quote la wik: "In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order"."
They control: universities, press, the civil service, a significant number of churches, arguably the military and as we see here, nearly all (all?) major corporations. We have... blogs.
In short, they are the establishment and "we", in whatever form we exist (perhaps none), are the radicals.
Ford Foundation itself has been promoting socialism and subversion in the Third World for ages. But the active support of leftist activity it just a minor aspect, the way I see it.
Corporations can't consciously favor any consistent ideological project because (a) their goals are more immediate and profit-centered; and (b) they tend to lose their unity of behavior throughout both time and chain of command as they get bigger. Rather, the real harm they make really come from their normal activities.
The way I see it, mainstream rightists support corporations only because of a short-sighted reaction to mainstream leftism.
Supporting corporations has nothing to do with supporting family, tradition and religion. More often than not the influence of big corporations on these matters is harmful.
[grammar correction]
Ford Foundation itself has been promoting socialism and subversion in the Third World for ages. But the active support of leftist activity is just a minor aspect, the way I see it.
Corporations can't consciously favor any consistent ideological project because (a) their goals are more immediate and profit-centered; and (b) they tend to lose their unity of behavior throughout both time and chain of command as they get bigger. Rather, the real harm they make really comes from their normal activities.
The way I see it, mainstream rightists support corporations only because of a short-sighted reaction to mainstream leftism.
Supporting corporations has nothing to do with supporting family, tradition and religion. More often than not the influence of big corporations on these matters is harmful.
Is it proper to call today's left the left? Quote la wik: "In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order"."
The left has always been about rebellion, libertine morals, equality, progress and anti-religion. The true right will always be about order, society, nation and God or religion.
They control: universities, press, the civil service, a significant number of churches, arguably the military and as we see here, nearly all (all?) major corporations. We have... blogs.
We have homeschooling, some private universities, a few underground/alternative entertainment venues and many churches as well (liberal churches tend to die overtime since liberalism tends to kill religion and all that is left is secularism).
In short, they are the establishment and "we", in whatever form we exist (perhaps none), are the radicals.
I have always disagreed with the leftist labelling of "conservatism=past". In the past there were major leftist movements from the 18th to the 20th century such as the Enlightment and the French Revolution. Just because it happened in the past does it mean it was in any shape or form truly conservative? Conservatism isn't just about the past folks, it's about past, present and future. We are pretty much radicals I agree. Proud far-right winger here.
There will always be an affinity between multi-national corporations and multiculturalism.
However, corporations are far more left-wing precisely because of govt. intervention.
Anti-discrimination laws first pass in big places like NYC or LA, and so the big companies based there start forcing their subsidiaries' personnel policies to comply for the sake of uniformity. (And to get activist cred in their hometowns)
Then these companies agitate for the laws to be passed where their competitors are based, so the competition don't have an advantage of freedom from these regulations.
On top of this, the EEOC gets involved, and corporate-govt ideology becomes intertwined.
Corporations are amoral entities. If it helps their bottom line, they'd piss on all of us, the Constitution and sell our souls to the Chinese. Fuck them! Conservatives who reflexively defend Corporations--as so many who reflexively defend israel--are suckers.
Interesting comment from Peter Frost:
Peter Frost said...
"I used to consider myself an anti-racist. I even once sat on the board of directors of an anti-racist organization. Today, I have trouble recognizing myself in what this belief-system has become.
Why did I identify with anti-racism? I saw it as a means to defend non-European peoples who had become politically and demographically marginalized, often to the brink of extinction. This was, and still is, the case with Canada’s First Nations, but it’s also the case with many other peoples, including some that are oppressed by governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As an anthropologist in particular, I saw anti-racism as a moral duty.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. But I do believe that ideologies can be exploited to serve new ends. In this case, anti-racism has gradually become an instrument of political disenfranchisement and demographic replacement – in a word, the very thing it used to combat.
This gradual change has turned what was once an ideology of the Left into an ideology of the Right. Anti-racism now serves the interests of a corporate globalist elite for whom the free flow of labor dovetails with their belief in the free flow of capital and trade. For these people, it doesn’t matter that their ideology will destroy long-existing cultures and populations. They don’t even feel guilty about what they’re doing. Anti-racism gives them a clean conscience."
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/08/cavalli-sforzas-about-face.html
Corporations are business structures AVAILABLE to any free man desiring to protect his personally tangible capital. Corporations are "bodies" that can protect individuals from anti-capitalists. But in a liberated society, the pressure is for corporations to seek a radical autonomy in their dealings. Such a stance will see corporations do whatever it takes to maximize their autonomy. That some corporations find alliance with our increasingly liberated government should be no surprise. The mutual desire is for a TOTALLY autonomous society.
The key for those on the right to understand is that they can wield their own radically autonomous corporations and create business models where non-whites pay a premium for your product so as to help subsidize a lower price charged to white consumers of said product a la an AT&T reversal.
For sake of brevity, let me just say that I was once a pro-corporation conservative. Then I learned that corporations came into existence because some elites wanted special market protections, so the government created and abstract legal entity known as a corporation which shifted moral hazard from the corporation owners to society at large. As such, I no longer have any love for corporations. They are the result of elitist cronyism, so it stands to reason that they would engage in elitist posturing such as donating to gay advocacy groups.
...We have homeschooling, some private universities, a few underground/alternative entertainment venues and many churches as well.
Don't nearly all churches worship the deity named Marin Luther King? Aren't they all anti-HBD? Aren't all of them pro-open borders or-at best-silent on the issue? Also, I've heard that the abortion rate for members of "fundamentalist" churches mirrors that of the general population.
"Don't nearly all churches worship the deity named Marin Luther King? Aren't they all anti-HBD? Aren't all of them pro-open borders or-at best-silent on the issue? Also, I've heard that the abortion rate for members of "fundamentalist" churches mirrors that of the general population."
You are correct, Anonymous. I live in an area with plenty of mega-church style evangelicals. They would rather associate with illegal immigrants- as long as they are religious- than secular white people. I've caught more flak from certain relatives for being irreligious than other relatives have for giving birth out of wedlock. A lot of religious people have some screwed up priorities, and have no interest in preserving or glorifying the non-religiously connected aspects of our civilization. Now, the really old-school calvanistic religious types aren't as bad as evangelicals I'll add, but they are a dwindling percentage of the population and are confined mainly to the over-65 age group.
Large corporations have always walked hand in hand with socialism. They re akin to Feudal monopolies granted by the King. They are also anonymous--unlike a privately owned business with someone's name on it.
Adam Smith said so. But that's history, so why care what Adam Smith had to say?
"Also, I've heard that the abortion rate for members of "fundamentalist" churches mirrors that of the general population."
Yes and no. It is sloppy social science. By not asking about attendance and not disaggregating by race and using the sloppy self identification which includes chicks who weren't religious back when they were screwing around and getting abortions but are now that their bastards need a village to raise them.
Post a Comment