The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel Bakan - Essay Example

The book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel Bakan, is based on the ideology that capitalism is currently dominated by corporations that are only looking out for their own best interests and that this system cannot hold up because it is undemocratic and it creates a society that is not equal and just. The current system is based nearly entirely on making money, which goes against human rights and simple ethical behavior. Making money has become the driving force behind these corporations and Bakan can be compared to both Karl Marx and Hubert Marcuse in his criticism of this system because they also believed that it was destined to failure. The difference, however, is that Bakan believes that corporate greed will be enough to end the current system, while Marx wished to end it through violent uprisings. The corporate world is one of the most selfish entities in history, as its greed has become more important than the welfare of mankind. Because of this, Bakan makes the claim that corporations are pathological. This is like comparing corporations to a serial killer, as these murderers are often described in the same manner. They do not think about the human element in any of their actions, but rather are only concerned by their own interests, regardless of the affect this has on others. This trend has grown because of the fact that the shareholders are no longer legally responsible for the actions of the corporation. This is because the government sees corporate growth as a positive for the economy, as it raised the gross national product. This is not true, however, as all of the money is going into the pockets of the elites. The entire system is now corrupt, as companies can now own shares in rival corporations without creating a conflict of interest. This is unfair because it means that there is no competitive balance. Basically, the elites have gotten to the point where they control the economy completely, which means that the world is dangerously close to going back to the feudal system. The goal of the corporation is to make money at all costs, even if these costs make the world much worse in the long run. In fact, the corporation is legally obligated to increase its profit as much as possible, since “the law forbids any other motivation for their actions, whether to assist workers, improve the environment, or help consumers save money. They can do these things with their own money, as private citizens” (Bakan, 2004, P. 37). This is true no matter how much it affects the people that are involved with it. This is because they are legally obligated to maximize the return to their shareholders, because failure to do so would bring a whole new set of problems to management, as “democracy requires, at a minimum, some measure of equality of opportunity to participate in the political process. Yet profound inequality is the result when corporations - huge concentrations of shareholder wealth - exercise the same rights as individuals within that process“ (Bakan, 2004, P. 106). As with anything in life, business has ethical implications that are often an issue. For a multinational corporation, these ethical questions are on a much larger scale than a small business, so there is a much larger risk involved. For example, multinational corporations are known to have their goods manufactured in China and other Third World nations, while paying the workers much less than they would have to pay them at an American plant. This raises the ethical question of whether or not this is acceptable, as the workers often work very long hours in substandard working conditions. This ethical question could cause problems for the corporation if the public sees it as a huge negative, which can impact marketing strategies, and, therefore, decisions must be made about whether or not this is an ethical thing to continue doing, as “business leaders were blamed for their role in the presumed ethical decline, and business schools were criticized for failing to provide ethical training to future leaders” (Bazerman, 2006, p.121). If the public begins to boycott a corporation due to its unethical practices, then there will be a lot of money lost, so these decisions are very important to the survival of a company. Therefore, strategic managerial decisions must incorporate ethics into them, to ensure that the public will not be discouraged from using the corporation’s goods or services. Small businesses are not on that large of a scale, so any ethical problems that they might run in to will not be as magnified, but they also must realize that any business that they lose is very important. A multinational corporation can afford to lose customers, as there will always be other customers to replace them, but small businesses rely on repeat customers to keep the business afloat, so they must keep them happy. When developing a strategy, small businesses must appeal to the values of the community, because they do not have the large marketing budget that multinationals do. Therefore, they must develop roots within the community, and the only way to do that is to understand the community’s ethical background and follow it. This, however, is often ignored, as companies have put their own money-making ventures ahead of any ethical problems that may arise. Large corporations must start acting in the manner that small businesses do in order to gain public trust and, therefore, be able to related to the public again. Otherwise, this could contribute to the collapse of the entire system. When starting a business, I would look at how greed has negatively affected others in the past when implementing my own business strategy. Many corporations blatantly break the law on a regular basis, which is significant because the government is aware that they are doing so. Bakan’s ideologies can be compared to communism, as those who devised communist documents believed that this sort of system was destined to fail. The document The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, and the essay “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology“, by Hubert Marcuse, are two very important works in the field of social studies because of the social and economic issues that they consider. In these two works, the authors examine the impact that capitalism has had on society and also what can be done to improve things in the future for society. Marx, on one hand, believes that Capitalism is the root of all evil and he wishes to organize a violent revolution in order to free the oppressed proletariat from the shackles that have been unjustly placed on it by the greedy bourgeois. Marx believes that the only way to do this is through a violent uprising, because the bourgeois has conditioned the proletariat for so long into believing that the current system is the only proficient way in which to do things, and that the roots of this are too deep to eradicate abruptly. He calls for a worldwide revolution by all members of the working class, which would end property ownership and, therefore, Capitalism. Marcuse, on the other hand, argues that the problems that separate the two classes are not as bad as they once seemed, due to advances in technology creating a bridge between the two sides. This technology, according to Marcuse, has created a society where neither side is overly powerful or dominant. This technology has made this struggle obsolete, according to Marcuse and, therefore, a revolution is not needed. Through the works of Immanuel Kant, it is possible to see that Marx was closer to the truth because our inherent need to make ourselves feel no discomfort has brought about greed and selfishness in our society that will not go away without something drastic happening on many different levels of society, not just socially and economically. Therefore, the only method by which to eliminate Capitalism would be a long and violent one, since this method would include the elimination of some less desirable aspects of human nature. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, is one of the single most famous works in the history of literature. It opens with the famous lines: “The history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles” (Marx, 1998, P. 1) and continues on to prove this thesis for the rest of the document and also discusses how this trend may be reversed. In the first section of this text, Marx focuses on showing the history of how the bourgeois rose to prominence. He discusses the Industrial Revolution and how it led to the manufacturing class gaining more power in society and finally having a voice of its own, rather than land owners having all the social and political power. This new bourgeois provided the working class with new opportunities to make money as laborers. This working class, the proletariat, would sell their labor to the bourgeois in exchange for financial compensation. This eventually caused the gap between the rich and the poor to become increasingly amplified, since the proletariat was so reliant on the bourgeois for finances and the bourgeois was too greedy to give them enough compensation to flourish. This trend, which is called Capitalism, is a problem for Marx because he believes that it will eventually destroy society, since it is such unbalanced system and creates a natural divide. As this text continues, Marx argues that he only wishes to make the proletariat aware of the situation that is ongoing around them, so that they can eventually be freed from this oppression and can live in a fair and just society. He also argues for the abolishment of private property, as that is one of the main reasons why people become enslaved to corporate interests. The land, or business, owners have all of the power thus, Marx believed that private property ownership should be eliminated, because it relies on inequality. He also stated that eliminating the bourgeois, and therefore eliminating Capitalism, would create a fair and just society where the proletariat would not just be working to provide sustenance, but would be working towards creating a society where everything from goods to services to culture was equal. Therefore, one group of people would not have control over another group of people and every person could be completely free from the influence of others’ interests. As this work continues, Marx argues that other forms of Socialism do not focus on the correct problems and do not understand how significant the proletariat struggle is to the future of society. Firstly, they do not understand that they cannot look to movements of the past in order to move forward, as the problems are much more complex now. Secondly, they do not recognize that culture, not just money, is a major problem for this movement, as the bourgeois has inflicted its culture onto the proletariat, causing it to believe that this is the way it has to be. Thirdly, these ideologies do not recognize that a violent revolution is perhaps the only manner by which to eliminate this oppression. Even though violence should be recognized as a final scenario, Marx believes that it is the only way to achieve sovereignty. In the finals section of this book, Marx writes that he wishes for ever person who is a proletariat citizen to rise up against the bourgeois, all across the world. This is the only way to organize a significant social change in the world and, therefore, create a fair and just society for all. He also, once again, argues that the abolishment of property ownership is the only way by which this revolution can be successful. Marx finishes off by writing, “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Marx, 1998, P. 42). This work is not much different than the essay of Marcuse, as they both recognize that there is a problem in society, but Marcuse argues that the dominance of the bourgeois in society has led to the decline of class interests, and the common good they presuppose, and to the development of "crowds" that consist of atomistic individuals. He argues that the revolution is not all that important, since technology has lessened the gap between the two sides to the point where it is no longer significant. This manner in which this whole idea ties into capitalism is that in a capitalist society, everyone is only interested in getting ahead, regardless of how immoral the person‘s actions are. In the Marx and Engel text, they argue that the Industrial Revolution would cause a divide in society between the proletariat and the bourgeois because both sides of the equation are trying to get ahead, no matter what the cost is. This includes things like lying to and stealing from the other side because it serves one side’s interests in a positive manner. For example, the owner of a company will always be looking out for his or her best interests. In a situation where he or she has had one worker in particular working with him or her for a long time, it is in his or her best interest to try to keep this employee within the company for as long as possible, since he or she will be very productive. However, if this employee demands for too much compensation in return, the owner very often will not give in to these demands. This is a situation where greed comes into play and makes things very difficult. The owner will, often times, lie in order to keep this person from wanting more, saying that the company is not doing as well as it should be and, therefore, he or she cannot afford to give a raise. This will cause conflict that is sometimes only resolved by the employee leaving the company. There is also the issue of jealousy that can come between the two classes. Members of the bourgeois will almost always have nicer and more expensive material possessions than the proletariat, which will cause some jealousy issues between the two sides. Since it is human nature to want to protect one’s personal interests, there are problems that arise from situations such as these. In addition, since such a small portion of the population owns such a large percentage of the assets in this industrial society, it is much easier for this one way of doing things to remain dominant. There is no reason to want to change things for the upper class because it serves its best interests to keep the status quo. While Marcuse’s argument has some valid points, such as how certain advancements in technology have changed things, he gives too much credit to technology in the process of lessening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Marcuse’s argument that technology “by itself can promote authoritarianism as well as liberty, scarcity as well as abundance, the extension as well as the abolition of toil” (Marcuse, 1941, P. 41) is flawed because the workers, despite advances in technology, still have to get up in the morning and go to work, while members of the upper class are afforded the chance to work less strenuous jobs, at least in terms of pure physicality. He does not prove at any point why this argument could be considered valid, but rather just makes numerous claims that cannot be assumed to be true. He also argues that “national Socialism is a striking example of the ways in which a highly rationalized and mechanized economy with the utmost efficiency in production can also operate in the interest of totalitarian oppression and continued scarcity,” (Marcuse, 1941, P. 41) which seems to promote a totalitarian state where the government has control of the people, but the people do not mind because they are flourishing despite it. There, once again, is not any evidence given to support this claim, as it is human nature to want to get ahead of others, despite what it does to the other people. This is the main problems with ideologies like Communism and Socialism: Human nature is a breeding ground for greed. Neither ideology takes human nature into account and the writers of these ideologies needs to read things such as Kant to get a better understanding of this process. Both of these texts explore what Capitalism means in our society and the effects that it both has had in the past and will continue to have in the future. While Marx has argued that Capitalism must end with a violent uprising by the proletariat, Mercuse has argued that this uprising is no longer needed because of the effects that technology has had on the Capitalist ideology make the gap so small that it is almost unnoticeable. Marx, however, is closer to the truth because human selfishness will always cause people to want more than other people and that is the driving force behind Capitalism that is far too engrained in our society to just go away without a fight. The question that must be asked is, “Is it possible, however, for a social movement characterized by decentralization and pluralism to be united around a common ideology or vision” (Barlow, Clarke, 2001, P. 125). The ideologies of Joel Bakan are significant because they argue that the current capitalist system cannot survive because of the inequality that is present in it. Corporations are given special privileges that are not afforded to the rest of society and this has created a very unjust situation. People are no longer cared for, as corporations are legally bound by their shareholders to maximize their profits no matter what the consequences are for the human beings that are involved. This system is not fair and it is somewhat similar to the inequality that Karl Marx foresaw with capitalism. Our society should take heed to the warnings of Joel Bakan, as he backs up his thesis thoroughly and makes the claim that corporate greed will be the downfall of the current economic system. Works Cited Bakan, Joel. (2004). The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. New York: The Free Press. Barlow, Maude. Clarke, Tony. Global Showdown. Toronto: Stoddard Publishing. 2001. Bazerman, Max H. (2006). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Marcuse, Hubert. (1941). “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology”. Marx, Karl. (1998). The Communist Manifesto. New York: Signet Classics. Read More