"It's not about the money. It's the principle."
- Thread starter Freakaholic
- Start date
bruno said:
Del Monte in Guatemala. Colluded with government death squads. Come to think of it, I think that's where I first learned the phrase "death squad."
Lots of corporations in Colombia - Occidental Petroleum, Drummond (in 2002!)
Unionists at Mercedez Benz plants in Argentina were "disappeared" in the 1970s.
check here for more details on some of those.
um.. Karen Silkwood in the US?
bruno
est malade
if mr smith from the smith family commits murder (to advance whatever family cause), that doesen't make the smith family guilty of it too does it? but let's imagine every member of the family except one is in collusion with mr smith. it is still wrong to say the smith family is guilty, as one of its members clearly had no part in it.
why not find out who gave what order, see the personal motivations and context where these were played out before blaming the monolithic whole? i have a feeling those who end up paying the price for your collective outrage are more often than not the innocent, not those you want to see punished.
on a side note, it's people who buy hummers, or who make the laws that allow these vehicles to function that you should shun, not the company!
why not find out who gave what order, see the personal motivations and context where these were played out before blaming the monolithic whole? i have a feeling those who end up paying the price for your collective outrage are more often than not the innocent, not those you want to see punished.
on a side note, it's people who buy hummers, or who make the laws that allow these vehicles to function that you should shun, not the company!
Last edited:
D
droid
Guest
bruno said:
But a corporation isnt an individual - its an organisation (legally) dedicated to one aim only - generating profits for its shareholders. Its not a case of 'evil' or 'good' - the level of corporate abuse in any given country is based on the liberties granted by each respective government, so for example, in the states, big food corporations can get away with ignoring environmental and safety and health laws (often with fatal results), and in the developing world they can get away with (literally) murderer - Its a sliding scale, restricted only by the regulations and political situation in the country in question.
Corporations are essentially amoral. Directors dont sit down at meetings and plan mayhem, they simply treat people like commodities, with predictable results. Removing individuals guilty of abuse will do nothing to change the institutional factors which produce such individuals (see the conspiracy thread in politics)
ripley said:
Theyll always be 'united fruit' to me
. Those guys have been fucking with Guatemala since 1901...droid said:
I agree with the first part of this statement more than the second. In almost any organization where accountability is widely diffused the organization can 'get what it wants' by routing through parallel channels, ie different individuals who are willing to bend/break the rules in the name of the organizations goals. However, treating corporations and the individuals who serve them as a monolith is a mistake and ignoring the differences between them is like ignoring the differences between people. We are all self-oriented, might break the rules when our own well-being is at stake, but some will do so more readily and at greater expense to others. Some individuals are more predatory, neglectful or abusive then others and the same holds true for corporations.
There's no denying that all corporations are dedicated to maximizing profits but there are various approaches to that goal, some of which include image or reputation building efforts which involve doing things like charitable works or investing in projects like sustainable energy. I feel like it's worth being a bit vigilant and rewarding as a consumer or endorser those companies whose practices which you agree with more and thereby sending the message that those tactics will be economically effective, allow them to profit and hopefully eat or put out of business the polluting, exploiting, human degrading corporations.
confucius said:
Yes, but isn't "The Corporation"'s schtick to treat corporations like individuals, and then say if they were people we'd consider them psychopaths- when in fact, as in Droid's point, corporations are totally different entities to individuals and to suggest that there can be "good" or "bad" ones is a fallacy, as it is to think that corporations can play nicely, and if only they did life would be nice and perfect.
Edit: BTW I havn't seen the film, just heard a lot about it...
I haven't seen "The Corporation" yet either, but I thought that a corporation was legally considered an individual. Here is my source:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030919.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030919.html
D
droid
Guest
Whoa-B said:
This is true, and is the result of nearly a century of very deliberate legal efforts by corporations.
I never tried to argue that all corporations are the same, but that whether you sell your track to Hummer or you sell it to a fast food chain, chances are you're selling your art so that it can convey the message of a corporation that commits acts you yourself would not personally commit and probably don't actually endorse.
Sure, you can only allow your music to be sold to companies you've personally researched and that pretty much defeats what I just said, but for a band to say something like, "we'd sell this to any company but Hummer," is just ridiculous and ill-informed, in my opinion. It's like people who smoke Marlboros and drink Coca Cola but mock people who eat at McDonald's. There are these few corporations that people have separated out as "evil" even though they're not very different from any other corporations.
How do you feel, for example, about Aphex Twin providing a track to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America?
Sure, you can only allow your music to be sold to companies you've personally researched and that pretty much defeats what I just said, but for a band to say something like, "we'd sell this to any company but Hummer," is just ridiculous and ill-informed, in my opinion. It's like people who smoke Marlboros and drink Coca Cola but mock people who eat at McDonald's. There are these few corporations that people have separated out as "evil" even though they're not very different from any other corporations.
How do you feel, for example, about Aphex Twin providing a track to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America?
Whoa-B said:
Uh huh... but because it is legally recognised as such doesn't mean that there's any moral or logical grounds for considering it to be the case. I think from Fichtean point of view bodies like the state or corporation wouldn't be considered individuals - although I might be wrong, been a while since I read any of that stuff...
Did this happen? Have to say I find that midly amusing. The idea of a "Drug Free America" is so laughable...
I imagine Aphex has passed on all his music to a library of some kind who dole it out to adverts without consulting him on each one - not that that's any defence for letting your music get used in such a way.
kennel_district
Active member
In terms of actions, I'm not sure that denying the use of your music to a corporation is going to achieve too much.
And I agree that the stance 'we won't sell our music to Hummer' is ill-thought-out at best.
And I agree that the stance 'we won't sell our music to Hummer' is ill-thought-out at best.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
And herein lies part of the point, I think. It's as much the product and it's immediate negative properties that a band want to avoid association with and endorsement of as it is the various activities of the corporation. Maybe this is a bit short sighted, but it seems to be a pretty natural stance.bruno said:
kennel_district
Active member
Slothrop said:
if they want to avoid it because their own 'brand image' would suffer, then that's understandable, while reprehensible.
Good music being used to endorse products is a necessary evil, I think - i like that people who've made good music can get paid for it, but marketing is pretty disgusting, overall.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
I was really thinking of the twofold effect of lending your support to a product: both supporting the product directly and supporting the company responsible for the product. For instance, if the same company made both a huge SUV and a super-green city car, it'd seem reasonable to be happy with your music being used to advertise the latter but not the former. The sort of arguments that have been used in this thread suggest that there's no moral distinction since by lending your support to the city car, you're lending your support to the corporation and thereby to all of their actions, including the SUV.kennel_district said:
I'm suggesting that it's reasonable to be more (but not exclusively) morally scrupulous about what you're directly supporting than about what you're indirectly supporting.
kennel_district
Active member
Slothrop said:
I agree it's somewhat better to have your music supporting a more environmentally friendly car, than a hummer, say.
However, either way you're propping up the system of marketing/advertising, and I confess to thinking that's morally incorrect.
corneilius
Well-known member
Money or meaning?
Interesting discussion ........ this is how I frame it for me ...... I am a singer/songwriter, dj, producer and have performed to over 10,000 people in the last three years or so, I have had 12,000 visits to my site last year, over 5000 downloads of my music from there plus another couple of thousand downloads from other sites where I have placed my music.
At present I perform about 80 - 100 gigs annually. I am incredibly fortunate in that I live in the UK, and get 56 pounds weekly from benefits, plus my weekly rent (53 pounds)/council tax(24 pounds) is payed. I rarely get paid for perfoming, I never have enough cash to make/print cds to sell.
I live on those 56 pounds ..... which I spend on organic food, (maybe thirteen different food products) and very little else, any clothes I have are second-hand, my house has no central heating, I do not drive a car, no TV and so on. I do NOT feel in any way deprived. I have succesfully de-conditioned myself from the standard consumerist mind-set.
And I can still go out and do those gigs, which is what performing is about, gigging, gigging, and more gigging which is all about meeting real people, at a level where it is still personal. If one has a gift, share it!
As I understand things, the current concept of a celebrity or a well-known musician is based on pr. marketing principles, which in turn are based on the work of Edward Bernays, which in turn is based on the early work of Freud ... and is fundamentally about the art of manufacturing consent by manipulating dysfunction .... and is about dis-empowering people on a mass level.
The ancient bards, on the other hand were tied into their communities. The best exampls of modern successfull cross-overs I know are people like Fela Kuti, who for example, used the income from his record sales to support about 4000 people, plus a range of projects to empower Nigerians in their communities, as did Bob Marley in Jamacia. There are probaly many more examples. Even then the record companies made more money than the musicians, much more, and that cash went into a few individuals back pockets to support extravagant lifestyles, as well as giving a few people 'jobs'.
I understand the world as a place where the resources for life are freely available to all life, unconditionally, and therefore see our current processes as un-natural, insofar that resources are hoarded by a few, and that force, both physical and psychological, is used to maintain that hoard. Those that do not acquiese are litterally starved out.
So if one buys into that process, one will attempt to hoard some for oneself. If not, then one will work out a mechanism that works naturally, which is what I hope musicians, farmers and many others will begin to do - because we can - to turn away from the status quo, and to build an alternative that works at a humane level.
Of course I will be criticised for saying this whilst receiving benfits, meagre though they are. However, I believe that over time I will be able build a sufficient audience to earn enough cash from my chosen work. I realise it takes time to build an audience, especially without recourse to mass marketing. I fully deserve to be minimally supported by the state, by any state, untill that time comes. If I am ever 'well known' it will be only to the extent that it is a natural extension of the work that I do, every day, a reflection of my genuine worth to the community. I am content with that. Anything beyond that, and I would have to create a stucture that channels that energy back into the community ....
Neither Bono nor Geldof truely need all their millions, so why do they a) hang on to it and b) harangue the rest of us to hand over our cash, whilst not addressing the fact that Africa is the way it is because of the way we ('civilized eurpoeans') hoard wealth by force, historically and in the present day?
They could easily live on say 100,000 pounds annual income, pay their tax on top of that, and then return the entirety of the rest to the community. Piece of piss if you ask me.
So I ask myself, why do they do it that way?
The only reason I can come up with is that they are part and parcel of the system, they believe in it implicitly, and have no interest in changing it. The do however wish to 'look' charitable......... and that is ugly to my mind, really grim. If I am wrong, well then they know where to find me .....
Finally, with regard to 'working' for a 'living', the concept of using my precious life hours up at a rate of 5 pounds an hour or whatever, so that another person can make much, much more is lunacy in the extreme.
In indigenous cultures the rewards from a collective endeavour, life, would generally be shared out equally amongst the group, so why not replicate that in our culture. I know we can. I know it is just fear and conditioning that stops us. Well fear and conditioning are piss-easy to deal with, really .......
Interesting discussion ........ this is how I frame it for me ...... I am a singer/songwriter, dj, producer and have performed to over 10,000 people in the last three years or so, I have had 12,000 visits to my site last year, over 5000 downloads of my music from there plus another couple of thousand downloads from other sites where I have placed my music.
At present I perform about 80 - 100 gigs annually. I am incredibly fortunate in that I live in the UK, and get 56 pounds weekly from benefits, plus my weekly rent (53 pounds)/council tax(24 pounds) is payed. I rarely get paid for perfoming, I never have enough cash to make/print cds to sell.
I live on those 56 pounds ..... which I spend on organic food, (maybe thirteen different food products) and very little else, any clothes I have are second-hand, my house has no central heating, I do not drive a car, no TV and so on. I do NOT feel in any way deprived. I have succesfully de-conditioned myself from the standard consumerist mind-set.
And I can still go out and do those gigs, which is what performing is about, gigging, gigging, and more gigging which is all about meeting real people, at a level where it is still personal. If one has a gift, share it!
As I understand things, the current concept of a celebrity or a well-known musician is based on pr. marketing principles, which in turn are based on the work of Edward Bernays, which in turn is based on the early work of Freud ... and is fundamentally about the art of manufacturing consent by manipulating dysfunction .... and is about dis-empowering people on a mass level.
The ancient bards, on the other hand were tied into their communities. The best exampls of modern successfull cross-overs I know are people like Fela Kuti, who for example, used the income from his record sales to support about 4000 people, plus a range of projects to empower Nigerians in their communities, as did Bob Marley in Jamacia. There are probaly many more examples. Even then the record companies made more money than the musicians, much more, and that cash went into a few individuals back pockets to support extravagant lifestyles, as well as giving a few people 'jobs'.
I understand the world as a place where the resources for life are freely available to all life, unconditionally, and therefore see our current processes as un-natural, insofar that resources are hoarded by a few, and that force, both physical and psychological, is used to maintain that hoard. Those that do not acquiese are litterally starved out.
So if one buys into that process, one will attempt to hoard some for oneself. If not, then one will work out a mechanism that works naturally, which is what I hope musicians, farmers and many others will begin to do - because we can - to turn away from the status quo, and to build an alternative that works at a humane level.
Of course I will be criticised for saying this whilst receiving benfits, meagre though they are. However, I believe that over time I will be able build a sufficient audience to earn enough cash from my chosen work. I realise it takes time to build an audience, especially without recourse to mass marketing. I fully deserve to be minimally supported by the state, by any state, untill that time comes. If I am ever 'well known' it will be only to the extent that it is a natural extension of the work that I do, every day, a reflection of my genuine worth to the community. I am content with that. Anything beyond that, and I would have to create a stucture that channels that energy back into the community ....
Neither Bono nor Geldof truely need all their millions, so why do they a) hang on to it and b) harangue the rest of us to hand over our cash, whilst not addressing the fact that Africa is the way it is because of the way we ('civilized eurpoeans') hoard wealth by force, historically and in the present day?
They could easily live on say 100,000 pounds annual income, pay their tax on top of that, and then return the entirety of the rest to the community. Piece of piss if you ask me.
So I ask myself, why do they do it that way?
The only reason I can come up with is that they are part and parcel of the system, they believe in it implicitly, and have no interest in changing it. The do however wish to 'look' charitable......... and that is ugly to my mind, really grim. If I am wrong, well then they know where to find me .....
Finally, with regard to 'working' for a 'living', the concept of using my precious life hours up at a rate of 5 pounds an hour or whatever, so that another person can make much, much more is lunacy in the extreme.
In indigenous cultures the rewards from a collective endeavour, life, would generally be shared out equally amongst the group, so why not replicate that in our culture. I know we can. I know it is just fear and conditioning that stops us. Well fear and conditioning are piss-easy to deal with, really .......
I can tell you one thing it most definitely achieves: if someone hears a tune that artist created, they won't think of (e.g.) Hummers and are more likely to receive the tune as the artist intended.kennel_district said:
As a listener that's the thing that matters most to me. I find it really irritating when I hear a song now and seemingly against my control think of the product it was advertising.