[lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes

[joanna bujes]

Problem is, they are committing these crimes in pursuit of their prime 
directive which is "maximize profits." This prime directive is 
equivalent to their "right to life." If they were computers, I guess you 
could get them to self destruct by pondering the paradox that they must 
destroy those they formally serve. But they're not computers. They're 
instruments of class domination, and this they do very well under the 
aegis of personhood.

Joanna

Liza Featherstone wrote:


>One thing I always wonder about the corporate personhood, is, wouldn't it be
>better to expand it in a totally literal-minded way. (I know, you would have
>to abolish limited liability - I don't know how to do that, of course.) Say,
>if they are going to be considered people and have the rights people have,
>they should have the responsibilities people have. Thus, say, OK
>corporations are people, so, when they commit crimes, the board, CEO and all
>of upper management have to do jail time. They cause someone's death, they
>get life sentences. Three strikes in California, we throw away the key. Etc.
>You could then criminalize environmental and labor law violations, and all
>sorts of other potentially great stuff. I think most people would rather see
>corporations gain responsibilities -- and miscreants wear leg irons -- than
>lose rights.
>
>Liza  
>
>  
>
>>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org>
>>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:00:12 -0500
>>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>>
>>
>>John Thornton wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>All persons are guaranteed "free speech". Corporations can donate
>>>money to political parties or individuals as a guaranteed form of
>>>free speech.
>>>      
>>>
>>-I think this line of complaint is more petit bourgeois than
>>-proletarian. It seems founded on an often undisclosed nostalgia for
>>-the 19th century world of proprietorships or small partnerships. And
>>-what a wonderful time that was!
>>
>>No, the complaints about legal personhood for corporations have to do with
>>the history of courts in the US using that "personhood" to endow them with
>>a range of constitutional rights that legislatures could not regulate.  For
>>decades, those rights included a range of economic contracting rights that
>>stunted legislative regulation.
>>
>>More recently, "free speech" and other "associational" rights have been
>>raised to try to block a range of regulations.   Let me give one example.
>>At one point, California required Pacific Gas & Electric to include a flyer
>>by a consumer group, TURN, advertising to ratepayers their ability to join
>>TURN and support a consumer advocate against higher electric rates.   The
>>US Supreme Court struck down this law as violating the free speech rights
>>of PG&E against having to be associated with the views of TURN.
>>
>>Believe me, in the legal work I do on economic regulation, corporate
>>opponents cite their constiutional rights against violations of equal
>>protection, free speech, due process and a range of other rights to combat
>>economic regulation.  Corporate personhood is indeed one of the deadlier
>>weapons against democracy in the United States.  We had a period after the
>>New Deal when this was largely abandoned, but it is creeping up on us
>>day-to-day and is likely to accellerate in the coming years as more
>>reactionary jurists extend their control of the courts.
>>
>>Nathan Newman
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>    
>>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>  
>