Help me out here. Was there not a time when corporations, at least on paper, had to demonstrate social good to exist? The criterion to make money was not enough, the company also had to have a socially redeeming value or serve society in some way. Currently, the mandate is to please the shareholders, no matter the cost. Was there a time when demonstrating social contribution was more important and when did this overtly stop?
Money – or rather capital – wants to reproduce itself ; and without regulation that’s what it does to the exclusion of all other values. That’s the point of Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission….
Henri
quinn
Just as the problem with hate speech is not the words but the bigotry driving it, which the First Amendment protects, the problem with using money to encourage “the abandonment of a life based on compassion, mutual respect, empathy and solidarity in favor of a life based entirely on the ruthless pursuit of profit over people and on wage slavery over autonomous self-determination and on the rights and privileges of the super rich over the most basic survival needs of the poor, the underprivileged, the disenfranchised and the radically humane” is not necessarily the money itself. The disappearance of money might curb some of that shit for some time, but wouldn’t similar problems develop by other means if oppression remains?
Help me out here. Was there not a time when corporations, at least on paper, had to demonstrate social good to exist? The criterion to make money was not enough, the company also had to have a socially redeeming value or serve society in some way. Currently, the mandate is to please the shareholders, no matter the cost. Was there a time when demonstrating social contribution was more important and when did this overtly stop?
Money – or rather capital – wants to reproduce itself ; and without regulation that’s what it does to the exclusion of all other values. That’s the point of Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission….
Henri
Just as the problem with hate speech is not the words but the bigotry driving it, which the First Amendment protects, the problem with using money to encourage “the abandonment of a life based on compassion, mutual respect, empathy and solidarity in favor of a life based entirely on the ruthless pursuit of profit over people and on wage slavery over autonomous self-determination and on the rights and privileges of the super rich over the most basic survival needs of the poor, the underprivileged, the disenfranchised and the radically humane” is not necessarily the money itself. The disappearance of money might curb some of that shit for some time, but wouldn’t similar problems develop by other means if oppression remains?