Surviving In The Corporate Republic

Individualism is the only response to corporatism. But it's lousy work with few rewards, rarely bringing promotion, wealth, or even much chance of success. Mostly, you just tick people off. Online, you might increasingly run afoul of corporatist laws and DMCA-citing lawyers. You do get to hang out with other grumpy, discontented people. Second in a series. (Read More).

[Thanks to the hundreds who provided enthusiastic feedback, pro and con, to Part One of The Corporate Republic. The responses were sharp and useful]

For those of us unhappy about the fact that we dwell in a Corporate Republic, where conglomerates increasingly dominate culture, politics and society, the issue isn't primarily economic. It's intensely personal: Can we live individualistic lives, express our own beliefs freely, develop our own value systems?

We have good reason to worry. Individualism and individuals are being continuously subsumed and marginalized in this evolving new nation. But as many people e-mailed in response to Part One: What are we supposed to do about it?

In the 60's people loved to talk about making a revolution. That seems out of place now. Corporatists aren't trying to kill us, they are quite happy to manipulate us; get us to spend, conform, behave and shut up; and punish and isolate us when we don't. Besides, corporatism makes a lot of people a lot of money and the beneficiaries, like the decadent and happy citizens of ancient Rome, are nearly anesthetized by what we are constantly being assured are good times. Who ever heard of a revolution occurring amidst the lowest unemployment in more than a generation?

To react at all, you have to buy the idea that something disturbing is happening. In our increasingly unconscious civilization, many people don't: "Big deal. This has been going on forever," e-mailed Jason. "Who cares?"

In the era of the techno-boom, denouncing corporatism means spreading bad news a lot of people -- even those most adversely affected -- don't want to hear. And unless you want to live like the Unabomber, it's nearly impossible to live, work or do business apart from corporatists. Sooner or later, like it or not, you'll be on one side or the other.

Any social or political movement has to have an ideology. Corporatism's is simple: profitability is society's dominant goal and everything -- creativity, privacy, freedom of expression, individualistic behavior, the political process, education, entertainment and culture -- can and should be subordinated to it.

But individualism, which has increasingly retreated to and thrived on the Internet, doesn't really have a coherent ideology, almost by definition.

That means that the first step towards any kind of survival is to transcend the suffocating boundaries of Left and Right in order to create an ideology of individualism. The second may be to wait for a political figure to emerge from the Net generation and define corporatism as the major problem its become.

This isn't imminent. As Senator John McCain has been trying to point out for several years now, corporatism has completely infected the political system; it serves as its primary underwriter, as it does for many colleges, universities, and cultural institutions. So don't look for the people who run the federal government to assert themselves against corporatism any time soon. These days, it's considered radical when the government proposes breaking a company like Microsoft into two gazillion-dollar behemoths rather than one.

Boycotting individual corporations isn't feasible in the 21st century, either. Boycotts are complicated, especially when most Americans are understandably confused about who owns what. Some of these companies -- Disney,AOL/Time-Warner -- are now so vast it would take a massive uprising to even dent their earnings. Boycotts are also somewhat repugnant to the free-market philosophy many individualists hold.

But a shared set of principles that individuals -- though they may differ sharply on many political, cultural and social issues -- might agree on, that's something people we can try:

To begin with, individualism ought to be recognized as a movement and a political philosophy. Individualism advances humanism, freedom, a free market that rewards individuals and small entities as well as conglomerates, embraces technology both as a means of expression and as a defense against corporatization.

Potential members beware. Individualism can involve some unpleasant choices. Corporatism viscerally punishes and isolates individuals. By their nature, individualists are discontented: persistent, obnoxious and unpopular, from the scoolkid who challenges a teacher in school, to the employee who irritates the senior veep. Individualism demands that its followers become critics.They raise questions many people don't want to hear, confront the growing conformity in our cultural and educational institutions, and put themselves at risk of losing positions and promotions and opportunities.

Their only reward is to join a proud community of other dissatisfied people, a community of social discontents. They are free to speak and think their minds. They are independent in an increasingly dependent world. They are affirming a long and glorious human struggle, from the Enlightenment to the American Revolution, to achieve autonomy and individual liberty. They are seeking a moral way to live in the world beyond simply fattening their portfolios. They can sometimes rise, and help other people to rise above the great levelling that corporatism imposes. People willing to undertake these risk might consider these ideas:

l. People need to wake up. We need a conscious civilization that acknowledges individualism as a basic human right. We ought to be able to express our own views, run our own businesses, pursue our own culture, develop our own software and hardware. We need family farming, local pharamicists, cranky local newspaper editors and website operators, and other small business ownership. We need diversity of opinion and thought in a homogenized cultural environment, the ability to develop innovative technology apart from monopolistic conglomerates. We need a new generation of political leaders who are not dependent on corporations for their survival.

2. We should acknowledge that economics matters (a lot), but it can't be society's only common goal. Nothing could be more morally bankrupt than a culture devoted only to making money, and to diverting work, technology and other institutions to that primary purpose. Free and prosperous markets are important, but corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders.

3. Individualism values a humane workplace. Workers are entitled to safe, creative and secure work environments, to freedom from continuous downsizings, re-structurings, layoffs and "re-engineerings." Though these practices unquestionably benefit the economy, they're rough on humanity.

4. Individualists celebrate, cherish and support non-conformity. Students, workers, citizens -- all have the right to their individualistic tastes in politics, lifestyles and aesthetic and cultural values.

5. Culture requires diversity; individualism starves without it. So culture needs to be liberated from corporatism. Conglomerates should be prohibited from corrupting and overwhelming institutions of technology, education, entertainment or information.

Just as Microsoft should never have been permitted to dominate the software market, neither should Disney, News America, Nike, Wal-Mart, Sony or AOL/Time Warner be allowed to dominate commerce and culture. This is a form of repression and self-censorship. 6. Individualism is increasingly dependent on universal access to technology. In our time, technology -- especially the Net and the Web -- has emerged as the greatest bulwark against rampant corporatism. Individualism still thrives online; in fact, individualism has been the dominant social and cultural characteristic of the most interesting parts of the Internet for nearly a generation. People with access to computers and the Net and Web have a certain intrinsic freedom of expression and access to information; that protects them from mass-marketed media that stifle diversity of thought. The more technology, the better chance individuals have to find space in a corporatist world.

The rise of the Net -- theoretically at least -- threatens the grip of that increasingly oppressive ideology. Online, we have the machinery to speak freely and loudly, at least until AOL/Time-Warner gets the Death Star fully operational. We can, if we choose, embrace the obligation of the individual to criticize, to use technology to become the pests of society, to challenge authority and conformity, to create public and private spaces dominated by individuals, not corporate entities. For this to happen, we all have to become critics. It's the first leg on the trip.

It's lousy work for which there are few conventional rewards. It rarely leads to success or victory, or brings anything but grief, but hell, somebody's got to do it.

So think of this as merely a starting point in developing an ideology of individualism.

(Next, Part Three: Shadowrunners and the Corporatist Wars)

Mr. Katz seems to have some contradictory premises

>>We need a conscious civilization that acknowledges individualism as a basic human right.

I'm not quite sure I understand the idea of "conscious civilization." Is this some kind of uber-mind, or statement that someone, society - civilization - is more than a collection of individuals, and can have a consciousness unto itself?

>>2. We should acknowledge that economics matters (a lot), but it can't be society's only common goal. Nothing could be more morally bankrupt than

Does the idea of a bunch of societal "common goals" seem to be totally contradictory to any form of individualism? Doesn't, rather individualism mean that each person is an end in and of themself, rather than just a cog in some "common goal"?

>>markets are important, but corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders

Come now, you've already taken it upon yourself to dictate moral and ideologica values. Don't back down now. Or, is what you're trying to say is that corporate entities should embrace "moral and idological values - of their own choosing", at least, so long as it fits into your own preset notions?

>>3. Individualism values a humane workplace.

Individualism is an entity, now? This is as contradictory to any real form of individualism as referring to the State as an entity. I'd jsut love to see Mr. Katz's response if the goverment were to say, "The State values a humane workplace for it's little pawns."

>>Workers are entitled to safe, creative and secure work environments, to freedom from continuous downsizings, re-structurings, layoffs and "re-engineerings."

Entitled to... at cost to whom? Is this still an "entitlement," even if it involves sacrificing other individuals - the company owners - to supply these "entitlments"?

>>Though these practices unquestionably benefit the economy, they're rough on humanity.

No rougher on humanity than a weak economy...

>>4. Individualists celebrate, cherish and support non-conformity.

Non-conformity as a value in and of itself is one of the largest farces ever foisted upon the world. Who's the biggest individualist, Mr. Katz: the person who listens to the "corporatist" music I've seen you condem, or the person who is controlled by what the majority of people like, and force to do something "non-conforming"?

Corporations are not the enemy

Corporations do essential, absolutely necessary things. They collect taxes, enforce standards, make the enforcement of decent labour standards possible, and most importantly integrate complex chains of production in a relatively economically efficient way.

Every industrialised economy, even the command economies of the former eastern bloc, had some kind of institution that functioned like a modern firm. They have had a variety of names, and a variety of legal definitions and statuses, but the basic machinery of management, division of labour, and intertwined responsibility have always been there.

The persistent failure of alternative formulations suggests that the modern firm is an institution unlikely to go away, and that it is undesireable to replace it.

The real problems revolve around who owns the firms, who operates them, and who regulates them, and in the end, what purposes they are designed and allowed to serve.

I agree that the corporation's ideology is "profitability is society's dominant goal," and that that is a poor ideology, recognised as such by nearly everyone. As B. F. Skinner pointed out, we do good because good is rewarded, and we do bad because bad is rewarded. I'm not so sure this is true in such a simple way for individuals, but Skinner's dictum recapitulates the essense of natural selection. If long life and growth are the rewards of profits, organisations will be structured to seek profits at the expense of all else. They have to, because if they don't other organisations will displace them in the ecology of human affairs.

Individualism at all costs isn't the answer. Without organising structures, every man and woman must depend on themselves for all their needs. It may be a sort of freedom, but it is the freedom of the caveman: the freedom to die alone when the machinery of society grins to a halt.

There are alternatives. Rethinking the nature of ownership and the rights of labour has been the project of various liberal philosophies for two centuries or more. And much progress has been made. It is no longer possible to own another human in most places. Societies generally recognise that the structure of firms creates uneven dependencies and pass laws to ensure greater balance. Until recently, social insurance was a value of such great importance that even the demand for economic efficiency was considered secondary to it. These programmes were, and are, successful. The level of public wealth available in the industrialised world would never have materialised without it.

An objection to the commodification of public culture is the single strongest thread of dissent in recent years. In days past, it was the commodification of labour that provoked rebellion, but today it's mostly culture. Both are undoubtedly bad things, but both can be amended.

Karl Marx prescribed the only solution to the commodification of labour by demanding that the means of production belong to the workers. Although his specific programme is quite dated and less applicable to the modern world, the basic tenet remains strong.

Take a look at Silicon Valley. One of the major factors in the success of the high-tech employment model is the liberal distribution of stock to employees and the relatively flat managerial hierarchies that insure local decision-making. Workers control those firms to an extent rarely seen in the "old" economy. Notions like total quality management and job rotation also serve to bring the workers more and more into the management, and indirectly into the ownership of companies. Surveys suggest that partially and wholly worker-owned companies out-perform fully private competitors on the average.

This suggests that the basic Marxist prescription remains the most effective way to undermine these old injustices. When a corporation must be held responsible to the immediate interests of a crosssection of the public, it acts quite differently. The evil done by self-perpetualting boardroom oligarchies becomes less and less likely when many of its own owners stand to be damaged.

The more contentious issue is the commodification of culture. No unified theory exists to deal with this problem, however, I note that it's scope diminishes when diverse and independent media are actively supported. The biggest music successes often start with underground recording, distributed independently, like the early Metallica, or grunge music. In some countries, publicly owned television stations with little or no advertising are able to set standards for content and culture that others must strive to equal in order to make a profit. Outside the US, most media markets support more than one newspaper.

Developing networks that insure the funding and representation of independent media, limitations on advertising and perhaps even moving away from advertising as a model of financing for media might serve that purpose.

But attacking corporations for doing exactly the things we reward them for is senseless. We need the corporations in order to support industrialised society and we can't change that. We can change what we reward them for doing.

Individualism Is Not The Answer

Personally, I think there is no 'answer', but I know that individualism isn't the answer. You simply can't have it. Jon, for all your ranting and raving about how bad corporate America is, about how bad Microsoft is, what would you have the alternative be? Oh, rather than everybody living under the tyranny of Microsoft, let's all live under the GPL instead. The GPL is better than Microsoft's licenses, so we should live under that instead. Well, what if I don't want to live under the GPL? What if I want to make up my own license? What if I want to make up my own program that will be enormously successful, but use my own individual protocols, and to make sure they stay individual, I don't want you using them (so I'll just close them off to anything but my programs)? I'm an individual.

I say, "Forget corporate America!" but I also say, "Forget all the hippy free software people!" too. Forget them all. Or don't.

Do what you freakin' want. If you want to use Microsoft, use Microsoft. You're not a sinner because of it. If you want to be a politician and get your money from the NRA, go right ahead. It's your choice. Your live by your decisions. If you want to eschew all wealth and be a hermit out in the West Virginian mountains, then by all means do it. What I really hate, though, more than anything else, is some guy telling me that would should be more like something. That's just as bad to me as the Gap telling me that I should wear khakis to be cool or Microsoft telling me I should use Windows if I want to work with everyone else. It's the same damn thing.

I'll do what I want, cause I don't want to listen to you telling me what to do.

ps. This all reminds me of the scene in Election where the Tracey stands up to give her speech and says, "So vote for me. Or don't!"

Re:Ah, but there IS an answer. . .

Hey Garund,
I took a look at your other post and you also made references to the pillar stuff. Sounds pretty cool... Can you email me a copy of that essay? My address is above.

Corporate Media Brainwashing

Leading social critics have long pointed out the vast lack of relevant information provided to the American public by the Corporate media. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent goes into this subject in great depth, pointing out the high concentration of ownership of the corporate media by Americas corporate elite.

Today, six conglomerates own 95% of the American news media. This concentration of ownership is generally realized in totalitarian states like Columbia, Argentina, etc. It is telling to note that virtually no Americans recognize this situation for what it really is: a corporate propaganda system. This corporate propaganda system is design solely to limit debate and confine the limits of debate to a pre-defined spectrum set by Americas corporate elite.

This is a very dangerous situation, and this point cannot be stressed enough. The danger to our Bill of Rights could not be more pronounced.

Finally, it should be understood why Americas corporate elite monopolize our communications media: they intend to inculcate the American public with the values, belief system and illusions necessary to contain the bounds of debate to predefined limits. Those limits - of course - are defined by corporate america, to the great detriment of all Americans.

Make no mistake: corporate americas elite do not monopolize the media in order to present the un-varnished truth, but rather to manipulate and deceive the public.

Jon Katz is one of the few Americans making this point and he should be complimented for doing so.

Ah, but there IS an answer. . .

I read an essay way back in highschool about this stuff. It had an interesting conclusion. It was this:

The establishment is run on rules and regulations, and it is almost impossible to win against them. They are immovable pillars of strength, so you have to be like water. The pillars don't care if you don't directly oppose them, so don't. Just go around them. There's always a way, so stay cool.

Actually, it occurs to me now that the fact this essay was even made available is an example of its own conclusion, since it wasn't part of the strict curriculum; it was brought in and distributed by a man who also happened to be my favorite English teacher. Those who understood, 'Got it.' Those who didn't. . . Well it didn't really matter.

The paper was not discussed or mentioned ever again, but those who were awake benefitted and learned. I've been following the advice in that paper ever since, and my life is pretty darn good. I have lots of friends, society at large respects me. (I've received multiple lines of credit from banking institutions who have told me point blank, (though very quietly), that they were going against all policy and were bending several rules in order to help me.)

I'm not angry. I don't hate anybody. I have a smile for all. (I do, I admit, always dress in camoflauge. It's a war out there. That is, I wear an ironed shirt, and maintain a haircut and shaven face. It works. I get friendly service where enraged letter-bombers don't. It's very simple.) But I also work the hours I want, (if any), and NEVER for a corporation, and while I am not rich, I make enough to remain comfortable.

Essentially, I think it's important to remember this:

Corporations are the enemy. Not the people who infest them. You can always appeal to People, so long as you respect and love them, and love life. People are the infection, and they'll almost always be on your side, because when it comes right down to it, even the well paid hate the establishment which makes them get up at 6:30 in the morning to go to 10 hour a day jobs. Even the most right wing politician likes to walk on beaches and have friends. The trick is to be able to see the world from everybody else's point of view.

That's all. Fight to maintain the things you love, but accept that you are never going to bring down the 'Man'. Anger is counter productive.

Good luck out there.

-Garund

Re:Corporate Media Brainwashing

I would note that, while Chomsky is no doubt an intellectual giant in linguistics and political dissidence, he almost always paints his opponents irrational and naively optimistic.

To the ignorant (read punk rockers who think he is a god), it is easy to take his information and spin as abolute truth. Further, the ignorant have a hard time distinguishing failures in a political and economic system from so called hordes of evil corporates bent on extreme self gain at the expense of others. This, of course, is just not the case, as it is more subtle than this.

I would urge anyone reading his material to read further into:

(a) basic macro, micro, and international economics
(b) http://www.thenewrepublic.com/ -- slightly liberal, although moderate and balanced. Their formal debate with members of the IMF, WTO, etc is fairly interesting. Also check out articles from Robert Wright, the author of nonzero: the logic of human destiny (mix of game theory, evolutionary biology - and also happens to write fairly intelligent articles)
(c) project gutenburg - Alexis de Tocqueville - democracy in america - V1 ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt97/1dina10.zip -- V2 - ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt97/2dina10.zip
(d) www.c-span.org - they actually have some stuff on toqueville, but it is kind of sub par -- what you should really be looking for here is interesting senate/congress whatever hearings, especially those on campaign finance reform, individual rights, etc