[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
How did the scourge of corporations come...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 85
Thread images: 8
How did the scourge of corporations come about? How do we destroy them?

pic related
>>
>>593766
>>
Corporations have a vital role in the future perpetuity of humankind. They're fine.
>>
>>593770
>>
>>593766
How did the scourge of nobility come about? How do we destroy them?
>>
>>593786
how's that?
>>
>>593792
They provide jobs, stimulate the economy, create items, foodstuffs, clothes, and other essentials of life. They facilitate the the continued functioning of the modern nationstate. In addition, many of them fun charities and other aid organizations for those less fortunate, as well as fund scientific and research groups.
>>
>>593791
>How did the scourge of nobility come about?
they allowed for primitive capital accumulation
>How do we destroy them?
capitalism :^)
>>
>>593766
Failures in the British laws of partnership in the 19th century.

>How do we destroy them?
Normative claims belong on /pol/
>>
>>593805
I agree with you for the most part. What I like about corporations is their ability to maintain uniform standards. To take a small example, as much as people praise small restaurants as 'authentic', your taking a shot in the dark whenever you enter one and there's a good chance you'll get shitty service and sub-standard food.
But the dilemma in places like Finland is that corporations provided a significant boost in living standards, but there is always a risk the corporation will fail and drag down the economy and wellbeing of the people with it. And as the example also showed, coporations DO interfere with the sovereignty of the nation state. You think people would just accept immigrants naturally? I don't think so, its corporate lobbying that gives them access to cheap labor.
>>
Funny that Jefferson was worried about corporations, if not him then another founder. Wilson was against them. They are obviously a contentious topic today. Could you provide a definition legal if a corporation though, OP? I don't think I have a clear understanding of the difference between a corporation and a company, for the purposes of the discussion
>>
>>593831
Of course, and I'm not saying we should just let corporations do whatever the hell they want without some type of regulatory framework, but i fully believe corporations can and do provide more good than harm.
>>
>>593766
>>593792
These images are Adam Smith's worst nightmare.
>>
I'd rather live in a society ruled by powerful corporations than one run by tyrannical governments.

GM can't get a dollar from you unless you give it to them.

During the Italian Renaissance society was run by elite banking families.
>>
File: fcf.png (470 KB, 600x592) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fcf.png
470 KB, 600x592
>>593791

>nobility
>scourge
>>
>>593841
I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of corporations, but to the best of my knowledge corporations are a type of company that represents a group of people as a single entity. There are different types of corporations. The ones under discussions can issue stocks/shares that people can purchase. In all scenarios, corporations are considered legally as people. So someone can purchase a stock in a corporation, but has no legal responsibility for the company as a whole when, say, it goes bankrupt or gets sued by a disaffected group or a government. This is why corporations are called "limited liability" companies. Of course people are delegated to manage the legal entity that is a corporation, such as chairmen, executives, boards of directors etc. etc.

>>593858
>>
>>593869
>I'd rather
On >>>/pol/ they care what your opinion is.
>>
>>593869
>I'd rather live in a society ruled by powerful corporations than one run by tyrannical governments.
Congratulations, if you live in America that dream is a reality.
>>
>>593888
oops
>>593858
if you mean that seriously; why?
>>
>>593894
Adam Smith argued extensively against the influence of the manufacturing industry and merchants on anything involving legislature.

Corporations are exactly the equivalent of that today.
>>
>>593792

Once the private sector is reasonably convinced of the potential of profit from space exploration, humanity is saved.

We face the immediate danger of extinction in every second that our species is limited to a single planet.
>>
File: 1453425242997.jpg (13 KB, 255x242) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1453425242997.jpg
13 KB, 255x242
>>593869
Do you mean Ford? I think you must have your baked out companies mixed up. >>593888
Would making shareholders accountable for debnts reduce the power of the corporation? If the corp is going to be viewed as a person is directors should be accountable as people. How would that better or worsen the situation?
>>
>>593917
but the same should apply to any type of lobbying, no? because as it stands anyone with enough money today can shill in congress to get stuff passed. of course, private legislation of all sorts was a staple of english parliament for centuries before smith, so it seems impossible to take special interests out of goverment indefinitely
>>
>>593890

On /reddit/ they care what your opinion is
>>
>>593879
>implying all of human history isn't just an endless litany of abuse of common man by their self-proclaimed "superiors"
>>
>>593923
>We face the immediate danger of extinction in every second that our species is limited to a single planet.
Many economists like Mill agree that in a state of stagnation it is best for the members of society to be complacent in their position and wealth, and if desiring more riches the avenue for hard work is there, but not always taken. This is not how reality exists for the members of society, indicating a systemic problem considering how vast our expansion and globalization is. We should probably start to consider this as more of a philosophical issue on the foundation of which our progress rests as opposed to looking for more avenues of resource extracting.
>>
>>593770
Most of them just have paper assets and no power whatsoever
>>
>>593939

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say, but ultimately, resource extraction and the wealth generated thereby are secondary benefits.

The primary benefit is in improving the capability of our species to survive self-generated or cosmic catastrophe.
>>
>>593925
well limited liability exists for a reason. it is a fantastic way to mitigate risk. before corporations people with capital faced ruin, imprisonment or humiliation if they were held personally responsible for investment. so arguably, without corporations risk-taking, and thereby innovation, would be curtailed.
At the same time, it makes it hard to weed out the crooks. Look how few people Obama prosecuted for the disastrous financial collapse of 08. People got off the hook cause they hide behind the mask of the corporation.
>is directors should be accountable as people.
It does happen sometimes. These directors become the fall guys, even if they were not personally responsible for some problem with the corporation. Corporations are also notoriously unfathomable when it comes to understanding management and who's in charge. People's livelihoods in the corporations rely on the whims of board execs. Just read this horrifying article about Amazon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html
>>
>>593930
I do not think the English parliament was as rigged as it is today. I know the House of Lords has a reputation for being very susceptible to influence by money. During Smith's time I believe the House of Lords was more full of pure nobility, very unlikely to be influenced by monetary interests. For a long time, feudalism was like this, barons had control of large swaths of territory and had extensive control over regions because of nobility and birthright, as opposed to monetary control. This is quickly becoming inverted. Some people like Hobbes, Plato, and the founding members of the Persian empire after the overthrow of Astyages reign, despised democracy for the corruption inherent, meaning you would be required to establish many connections to gain power and control, many of which would necessarily be clandestine.
>>
>>593951
What do you mean by self-generated catastrophe?
>>
>>593957
I am tired so I can't come up with a coherent reply right now...but I appreciate the reply
>>
>>593766
By adopting "functional socialism".
> Instead, let us take out current capitalists of their ownership functions, so that in a few decades remain formally as kings, but in reality as more or less powerless symbols of a bygone era.
From "Functional Socialism: An alternative to communism and capitalism" by Gunnar Adler-Karlsson. Functional Socialism is the official doctrine of the Swedish Social Democrats.
>>
>>593971

Nuclear war (or sufficiently devastating conventional war) would be the most obvious one that comes to mind. There are any number of ways that we could cripple our ability to expand into space before we actually get there.
>>
>>593957
>I do not think the English parliament was as rigged as it is today.
Your opinion is worthless and utterly uninformed.

Read about the enclosures, try Hammond & Hammond.
>>
>>593976
So how would that work again?
>>
>>593952
That article actually seemed flattering. Probably terrible on paper though. Either way, is the a viable method to promote risk taking, then, as an LLC or sole proprietorship/partnership? I feel like the bankruptcy laws must be forgiving; trump has filed on four different occasions.

>>594004 how would that work?
>>
>>593990
Yes but you did admittedly not grasp what was previously said. The point was we have a philosophical issue here, not a resource grabbing, population spreading one. You are adopting a stance very similar to ones adopted by rationalizing colonial progress. Since Smith was mentioned, he used the colonies of Rome and England as an example of expansion that liberated that capital of the country to seek employment elsewhere. If we keep thinking about expansion in terms of a simple enhancement to a math equation we lose sight of why society really exists.

We see this in how our stagnation is far from what our ideal of it should be, as referenced earlier through Mill.
>>
>>594026
How is survival of the species a philosophical issue.
>>
>>594001
>the better-off members of the European peasantry encouraged and participated actively in enclosure, seeking to end the perpetual poverty of subsistence farming.
>>
>>594026

We absolutely have a population spreading problem, in that we're not doing nearly enough of it. This is about promoting the continued existence of the species (though I admittedly have a more selfish motivation advanced by the same actions), not mulling over why we exist and what we should do with that existence.

Many have fooled themselves into thinking that we have reached the point as a society where we can, for the most part, disregard the problems of sustenance and security in favor of more abstract philosophical questions. This is a lie we have told ourselves. Humanity is still engaged in a desperate scramble for survival, but very few realize it in any meaningful way and even fewer are doing anything about it.
>>
>>594034
I don't think we have to worry about survival of the species anymore, that's an evolutionary biology term.

This is an issue of economical foundation. What sort of system are we indoctrinating these countries into? Is it one which they would benefit from? In a utilitarian sense are they actually receiving a higher number of 'hedons' per head? Why must we continually seek more means of agricultural improvement, even genetically modifying foods without fully examining the effects or philosophy behind it? Why must this system be so unsustainable, cyclically?
>>
>>594056
>we must consume more and more and expand throughout the universe
Commence the maniacal laughter and evil trombone.
>>
>>594026

>we lose sight of why society really exists

Society exists ultimately to facilitate the perpetuation and production of human organisms. It provides a relatively sheltered environment away from "nature" where offspring can be produced and raised to maturity with greater ease.
>>
>>594060
I'm not sure what that has to do with establishing population centres off planet.
>>
>>594064

And what do you suggest?

Staying on Earth and navel-gazing until the Sun obliterates the planet?
>>
>>594004
He identifies several points that's important among the function that capital have in capitalist society.

* Decisions regarding the production of existing fixed capital resources
investment

* Decisions regarding the utilization of labor

* Wage Decision

* Decisions concerning the distribution of profits

* Redistribution Decisions

* Decisions regarding economic equalization

* Control of the concentration of power

* Balance between economic and other values

Trough legislation, these will be wrestled into submission to serve the people without the state to own and run them. How far the legislation and the like needs to go depends but it's a gradual transmission.
>>
>>594069
We only exist to rear more humans? Why wouldn't we try to improve our understanding of the universe and reality? Why wouldn't we all collectively try to raise the enjoyment of all members of the society as much as possible?

But no, you are stipulating the existence of society is it's only justification: that it only must rear the next generation.
>>
>>594041
And what does this have to do with England, and how does your quotation trump a well received published monograph?

This isn't hot opinion town bro.
>>
>>594060

As long as we are restricted to a single planet, we have to worry about the survival of the species. With more self-sustaining colonies spread further and further away, we have less to worry about, because few things could wipe out a species distributed across several planets or several solar systems.
>>
>>594076
Wouldn't establishing colonies on different parts of the solar system increase our knowledge and understanding of the universe?
>>
>>594073
No, but perhaps we should examine our operating philosophy and form of government a bit more to see why we constantly see others adopting principles like
>>593923

Because that sounds more like we are a virus than anything else. Based on that post I would feel sorry for any future planets we come into contact with. And that is the mentality adopted by many leading officials, trust me.
>>
>>594082
How do enclosures, the creation of landed estates, present any sort of evidence that money was passing hands in the House of Lords?
>>
>>594076

That's the goal of every other organism on this planet. As I said here >>594056 , we are not yet beyond the base biological concern of the survival of our species, as much as we'd like to think we are.

Improving our understanding of the universe is necessary for expanding into space, but we should be applying the knowledge as it is gained instead of sitting around on Earth with thumbs up our asses until we think we know enough.
>>
>>594092
oh christ, its another retard who believes in the le humanity is cancer bullshit.
>>
>>594096
>we are not yet beyond the base biological concern of the survival of our species,
I'm sorry, you have to stop using the term survival of the species, as if we were threatened by competition of other species.
>>
>>594092

Any spacefaring resource-consuming species can be construed as viral in nature. Why is that a bad thing? Why do you feel pity for the inanimate resources that await us?
>>
>>594100
Anti-natalists are idiots.

But if you think the existence and propagation of the human species is inherently beneficial, even for life on this planet, you are sorely mistaken.
>>
>>594101

We're threatened by ourselves and by environmental pressures. Those impact survival as well.
>>
>>594106

It's inherently beneficial for us.
>>
>>594106
its pretty fucking beneficial to me.
>>
>>594104
Why wouldn't you feel pity laying waste to natural resources? This shows a lack of understanding of respecting all celestial bodies. And hypothetically, if we were to come across another species, would we even have a beneficial philosophy to spread? No, please start farming your lands for us, they present a great opportunity to produce our genetically modified crop which produces cancer in two thirds of our population. So smart.
>>
>>594073
thats a problem several hundred million years away. If we haven't found a solution by then, then the human race deserves to die desu
>>
>>594115
Rocks and rare earth minerals do not deserve respect as they are inanimate objects.
Oh yes, I'm sure the discovery of fucking aliens would lead directly to some industrial age cotton picking in SPACE.
>>
>>594075
That seems more like you're anti capitalist than actually concerned about corporations.
>>
>>594110
>We're threatened by ourselves
Mass war is quickly becoming something of the past, thank god. Unfortunately, it did use to be a positive check on population, but that is the ONLY negative consequence.
>environmental pressures
If this is the threat you meant when you said we are threatened by ourselves then I agree, global warming is a real threat caused by us and we are ruining this planet.
>>
>>594115

Why in the name of all existence would you pity a chunk of platinum? What purpose is there in respecting celestial bodies except in cases where we want to preserve for future generations outliers that are particularly aesthetically pleasing? If we do encounter other intelligent species, I do hope that we extend respect and cooperation to them.

You seem intent on crippling our species and tethering it in place, much for the same reasons a child may not want to step on to a pristine field of snow.
>>
>>594126
Just as the Amazon rainforest doesn't deserve respect either.
>>
>>594126
obviously we'd get the space aliens to extract resources from inanimate objects.
>>
>>594139
Now check my position. I never said all space exploration has a negative effect. I simply meant the motivating factors were ill founded.
>>
>>594138
Nuclear proliferation is only increasing. There is a non-zero chance that a limited nuclear exchange may happen sometime in the future. You only need to look at Pakistan and India.
>>
>>594138

The planet will be fine. Humans may bring about a mass extinction, but if we do, it's almost a certainty that we'll be among the victims. Whatever is left in our wake will establish a new ecological regime in short order if we wipe ourselves out.

Do keep in mind that biodiversity is at an all-time high in Earth's history, despite environmentalist whining.
>>
>>594142
>rainforest
>comparable at all to asteroid belts and celestial bodies such as Mars and the Moon
I don't think so.
>>
>>594146

The motivating factors are irrelevant at this stage. Any motivation at all for expanding into space is sufficient for now.

Dissenting opinions on our goals will arise as they always do, but that will happen when humanity is in a position of relative security. As natural as it is for us to destroy and consume, we are prone to compassion and the search for knowledge. These tendencies will arise in the aftermath of expansion, no matter the original intent.
>>
>>594162
So you wouldn't respect the landscapes of other planets the same as you would of Earth's?
>>594159
What about the Dodos? The many other species we've caused to go extinct by hunting or expanse of civilization?
>>
>>594142

Taking into account the transient nature of species and biological paradigms on a geological timescale, it really doesn't.
>>
File: 1452607247355.png (214 KB, 400x399) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1452607247355.png
214 KB, 400x399
>>594180
>The motivating factors are irrelevant at this stage.
>>
>>594025
this article too if your interested
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/work-policies-may-be-kinder-but-brutal-competition-isnt.html
>>
>>594181

What about them?

Species go extinct literally every day without human contribution or intervention. They've been doing that since life started on this planet. Do you condemn a fungal parasite for destroying a species of insect, or a meteorite for disrupting entire ecosystems?
>>
>>594186

Yes, and?

Do you have any real arguments?
>>
>>594194
And many go extinct with human invention. Very many.
>>594196
I'm not giving a reply to that. I'm just going to post that reaction pic and let it sink in how stupid everything you said was.
>>
>>594198

Again, you present no compelling arguments. That just tells me you haven't actually put much time into examining your own stances on this matter.
>>
>>594211
Your post was an argument against itself.
>>
Corporations exist at the behest of whatever nation state they operate in. Their survival depends entirely on the mastery of striking deals and providing products and services consumers are willing to pay for.

Imagine if your neighbor built a windmill and sold the electricity. They own the means of production and according to Karl Marx this is evil, but would it really be right to demand a share of the profits? If corporations are good at what they do even with heavy taxes laden on them, why is that a problem? If you want more money simply found your own successful company, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift and major technological changes and economic growth in emerging markets, there are plenty of opportunities, if you can't make your first million before you are 30 it is because you aren't trying hard enough.
>>
>>594095
Because we've got diarised evidence of the people who bribed the commons and lords committees to profit over enclosures.

Don't open your fucking mouth unless you've read something on the period. Don't "suppose."
Thread replies: 85
Thread images: 8
Thread DB ID: 458293



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.