From our overstocked archives
Sam
Smith, 2011 - The
right has successfully convinced people that multinational corporations operate
in the same way as your friendly neighborhood druggist. In fact, it is hard to
find examples where the former even slightly replicate the latter. Yet this
myth is perpetuated not only by politicians but by the media.
In fact, large corporations repeatedly drive smaller firms out of business.
Large corporations don’t treat customers as fellow members of their communities
but merely as a market to exploit.
Large corporations, unlike small businesses, are run on the lifeless model
described by John McKnight: “The structure of institutions is a design
established to create control of people. On the other hand, the structure of
associations is the result of people acting through consent. . . You will know
that you are in a community if you often hear laughter and singing. You will
know you are in an institution, corporation, or bureaucracy if you hear the
silence of long halls and reasoned meetings.”
Large corporations, unlike small businesses, do not constrain their ambitions
in order to maintain respect and honor within a community.
Large corporations are not the major job creators; small businesses are. As the
Small Business Administration noted in a 2010 report, “While small and large
firms provide roughly equivalent shares of jobs, the major part of job
generation and destruction takes place in the small firm sector, and small
firms provide the greater share of net new jobs.”
Large corporations are, in fact, the nation’s major job exporters, not to
mention all the money they launder overseas while avoiding domestic taxes. Yes Magazine recently put it this way: “Between
2000 and 2009, U.S. transnational corporations, which employ roughly 20 percent
of all U.S. workers, slashed their U.S. employment by 2.9 million even as they
increased their overseas workforce by 2.4 million. . .A series of Kauffman
Foundation studies find that nearly all job growth in the United States comes
from entrepreneurial startups, which by their nature are products of Main
Street. It is equally significant that more than 90 percent of the
entrepreneurs responsible for job growth come from middle-class or the top end
of lower-class backgrounds. Less than 1 percent of America’s job-creating
entrepreneurs come from extremely rich or extremely poor backgrounds.”
The carefully concealed truth is that Wall Street and corporate America hate
free markets. That's why these welfare fathers keep tens of thousands of
lobbyists in Washington -- to protect them from the random effects of the
competition they so frequently extoll.
The least free of all markets is to be found at the Pentagon, where defense
contractors have become so dependent on their single customer -- the military
-- that more than a few simply wouldn't know how to survive in normal business
competition.
Generally speaking, the smaller the business the more it resembles the great
myths of capitalism. If you want to find out what free enterprise is really
about talk to a street vendor and not a Fortune 500 executive.
Typically, members of the 1% are not there because they are smarter or more
creative than those in small business. As C. Wright Mills noted:
“If we took the one hundred most powerful men in America, the one hundred
wealthiest, and the one hundred most celebrated away from the institutional
positions they now occupy, away from their resources of men and women and
money, away from the media of mass communication . . . then they would be
powerless and poor and uncelebrated. For power is not of a man. Wealth does not
center in the person of the wealthy. Celebrity is not inherent in any
personality. To be celebrated, to be wealthy, to have power, requires access to
major institutions, for the institutional positions men occupy determine in
large part their chances to have and to hold these valued experiences.”
Most free workers in this country were self-employed well into the 19th
century. Further, until the last decades of the 19th century, Americans
believed in a degree of fair distribution of wealth that would shock many
today. James L. Huston wrote in the American Historical Review:
"Americans believed that if property were concentrated in the hands of a
few in a republic, those few would use their wealth to control other citizens,
seize political power, and warp the republic into an oligarchy. Thus to avoid
descent into despotism or oligarchy, republics had to possess an equitable
distribution of wealth."
Such a distribution, in theory at least, came from enjoying the "fruits of
one's labor" but no more. Businesses that sprung up didn't flourish on
competition because there generally wasn't any and, besides, cooperation worked
better. You didn't need two banks or two drug stores in the average town.
Prices and business ethics were not regulated by the marketplace but by a
complicated cultural code and the fact that the banker went to church with his
depositors.
Although the practice was centuries old, the term capitalism -- and thus the
religion -- didn't even exist until the middle of the 19th century.
Americans were intensely commercial, but this spirit was propelled not by
Reaganesque fantasies about competition but by the freedom that engaging in
business provided from the hierarchical social and economic system of the
monarchy. Business, including the exchange as well as the making of goods, was
seen as a natural state allowing a community and individuals to get ahead and
to prosper without the blessing of nobility.
In the beginning, if you wanted to form a corporation you needed a state
charter and had to prove it was in the public interest, convenience and
necessity. During the entire colonial period only about a half-dozen business
corporations were chartered; between the end of the Revolution and 1795 this
rose to about 150. Jefferson to the end opposed liberal
grants of corporate charters and argued that states should be allowed to
intervene in corporate matters or take back a charter if necessary. With the
pressure for more commerce and indications that corporate grants were becoming
a form of patronage, states began passing free incorporation laws and before
long Massachusetts had thirty times as many corporations as there were in all
of Europe.
Still it wasn't until after the Civil War that economic conditions turned
sharply in favor of the large corporation.
These corporations, says Huston, "killed the republican theory of the
distribution of wealth.”
Concludes Huston:
"The rise of big business generated the most important transformation of
American life that North America has ever experienced."
No comments:
Post a Comment