Etienne tim_boetie
-clip-.
So the point of abolishing corporate personhood isn't to replace corporations with some other legal form - it's to remove some of therestrictions on regulating corporations which the current interpretation of legal personhood forbids. The regulation Nathan is talking about doesn't seem like it would require massive political reform, and it's certainly not some kind of quasi-socialism. Abolishing the legal personality of corporations might be, although if it were, presumably John Q Moneybags would just stop using the corporate form.
^^^^^
CB: Maybe it's like this. Yes, if the personhood of the corporation were abolished, it would definitely destroy the corporation as a tool for capitalists. However, in the context of this discussion, the main essentials of personhood of the corp in the U.S. actually predate the 14th Amendment snafu interpretation. Also, the corporate veil/limited liability is at least a coequally critical feature of the corporate form than the personhood.
The critical part of corporate personhood is the legal ability to own property, which preceded the 14th Amendment. See Wikipedia reference. The free speech stuff is not very central to the capitalist function of the corporation. Owning property and shielding the natural capitalist persons ( John Q Moneybags) from personal liability is the capitalist essence of the corp.
The main shield to regulation that the corp gives is shielding regulation of the capitalist natural person's money.
Maybe.
By the way, it is not like the governments are doing a lot of regulation or control of corporation's moneys _even ignoring the 14th Amendment_. In other words, this is state monopoly capitalism wherein government serves corporations; it doesn't , in the main, regulate them in the interest of the working class.