The Corporation Reviewed

By Ron Wilkinson Aug 30, 2004, 0:55 GMT

The current cinema has found a media villain in the corporation; and seems never to tire of pitting its stars in a David vs. Goliath battle of the oppressed public against the monster machine.  “The Corporation” takes a different approach by showing the corporation to be inhuman by its nature and refusing to set up the mano-a-mano battle that has been the stuff of Hollywood since Sally Field’s “Norma Rae,” and Meryl Streep’s “Silkwood.”  This gives the film an analytical point of view that sets it apart from the melodramatic.  It also gives us a tool to cope with the evils of this present day monster: the realization that we have found the enemy and it is us.

As the movie points out, the corporation was not originally conceived as having any “human” rights at all.  It was a business entity based on a set of rules having to do with legal and financial practices.  Any people.  As the movie describes its evolution, lawyers working for corporations in the mid 1800s were able to make the case that since the corporation was owned by people, it had the rights of people as guaranteed by the constitution.  This included the rights to live in other countries and be protected by the laws of the USA, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure among others.

Although this might seem innocuous at first glance, when this manufactured super-human was given its rights and privileges it was never given a soul.  Whereas biological humans are born with consciences and innate feelings of sympathy for their fellow humans, the corporation was configured to raise capital and make money.  There was never anything in the fine print about caring for people, raising anyone’s standard of living or contributing to the social welfare of the populace.  The duty of the corporation was, and is, to make the highest possible profits and protect shareholders from liability.  There is no place in the corporate compact for making the world a better place.

A protester at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001 as seen in The Corporation

The revelation of the movie is that far from acting in the wrong way, the modern corporation is acting in exactly the right way.  It is making money entirely without regard to the human consequences of its actions and is getting better at doing it all the time.  The misperception that Hollywood exploits in the David and Goliath melodramas is that someone in the corporation, such as the CEO or the Chairman of the Board or maybe the janitor is supposed to supply this soul for the corporation.  That’s news to them because it’s not in their contract either. 

Everyone is playing by the rules, but it’s becoming more like mob rule every day.  The group has taken on a personality different than of any of its parts.  Everyone in the corporation is supporting the “make money” rule and the “right to work wherever one pleases” rule, but nobody is sticking up for the “care about the human race” rule.

After the lack of a social contract the concept of the global economy is the best thing that ever happened to American corporations.  Because the American corporation is treated legally like an American, it is governed by the rules of the country in which it does business, not those of the USA.  So the corporation can produce rubber in chemical plants in countries without environmental laws which greatly cuts down the cost of rubber production; especially if the plant can dispose of toxic wastes right next door in the field where the farm used to be.  Considering this was done in America until the mid-twentieth century, it is not hard to believe that it is happening in other countries right now---other countries that are making the raw materials for American products.

Then the corporation manufactures canvas in a different country where there are no laws forbidding cutting down old-growth forests and using the land for cotton plantations.  It is important to note that the first country where the rubber is formulated might have laws protecting the forests, and the country allowing forest devastation might have laws forbidding hazardous waste dumping, and America might have laws against both.  But none of that affects the corporation.  The corporation picks and chooses amongst the laws of the world and fits the task at hand to the country with the best laws.  Of course, it also uses its financial and political power to influence the chosen country even further in the most profitable direction.

The corporation then transports the rubber and the cotton on ships that fly under the flag of yet another country that is lenient with regard to shipping safety inspections and crew qualifications.  The ships are able to provide rock-bottom rates because they employ illegal aliens at a fraction of what qualified western educated seamen would cost.  The ships also dump bilge water and other waste hydrocarbons at sea and avoid expensive disposal costs.

The corporation on the couch in a 1950s Xerox advertisement excerpted in The Corporation

The materials are shipped to another country that has no labor laws and this is where the final fabrication of the shoes takes place.  When they are completed, they are shipped back to the USA for sale.  We are the money part of the equation; a bad place to make goods, but a great place to sell them.  We have lots of money and no laws against people wasting it.  We also don’t publicize the manufacturing history of the garment, other than the usual “Made in China” label.  Talk about an understatement!

It is interesting to consider that some countries (Sweden comes to mind) have instituted policies that extend their laws to the country’s citizens no matter where they may be traveling.  So if a citizen travels to Thailand and breaks laws existing in Sweden, they can be prosecuted in their homeland when they return.  Could such a legal principle be applied to corporations?  Would we ever buy shoes again?

If the problem with corporations is that they have been given all of the protections afforded to persons, but have not been given the moral responsibilities inherent in humans, who is to blame?  Is it possible for the corporation to be less caring and more brutal than the people owning it?  You bet it is.  But then, that’s what mob psychology is all about.  Who brought the conscience?