[lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes

Michael Dawson MDawson at pdx.edu
Mon Nov 29 14:51:29 PST 2004


You could also combine CEO chain-gangs with other forms of criminal justice enforcement against the firms themselves. We real individuals can go to jail and even get the chair. Perhaps special retributive taxes, hostile public takeovers, and a corporate death penalty would make a nice sentencing scale.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Liza Featherstone
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:28 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes
>
> Well, certainly. But the question is which of these impossible demands
> contains more political potential -- they are all impossible, in the world
> as it is, but the ideas can build momentum for other reforms -- and I
> think
> the idea that corporations, like individuals, should be forced to take
> responsibility for their actions has more resonance and potential than the
> idea that it's so horrible that corporations have the same rights as
> people.
> I think most Americans like rights and responsibilities and think there
> should be more, not less, of both. Also, I don't, on a purely visceral
> level, care whether corporations have free speech or not, but I want to
> see
> CEOs break rocks when they break laws and I imagine I'm not the only
> person
> who feels this way.
>
> Liza
>
>
> > From: joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net>
> > Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:41:58 -0800
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Challenge for leftists of all stripes
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list