Are People Who Work For Corporations Bad People?

[Rakhmetov]

I'm afraid Chomsky is losing it when he says people who work for corporations are "not bad people." Ward Churchill is right when he said they are "little Eichmanns." I'm not talking about some lowly guy working at McDonalds flipping burgers. I'm talking about the lawyers and technocrats, CEOs, accountants, etc. What do you guys think???

[Sosa]

Working for a Corp. doesn't necessarily make you a "bad" person.

[Revolutionair]

There were kind slave owners. Personal feelings about being bad or good don't matter. The thing that determines a persons behavior is his/her place in the system.
We should focus on destroying capitalism, not individual capitalists.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I work for a corporation and I'm a pretty good person but I'd certainly agree that anyone in a position high up enough in the ladder of a corporation is a bad person, I suppose it's the question of how high can one go without becoming a bad person which is a little more tricky. If you are in a position where the decreasing conditions of the workers directly (positively) affect your personal conditions, monetary gain, or scope for things like promotions, or even just a new swivle chair for your office, then yes, you are a nasty bastard.

[Widerstand]

Bad person is a pretty moralistic approach. You could say they are to blame for holding a "bad" position, but I don't think we should make moral judgments based on ones job.

[Tablo]

I think most of the US and EU works for corporations. If you mean CEOs then I think it is reasonable to assume that not all of them know how much their job hurts people. I still think Chomsky is very wrong on this one for the most part.

[Sosa]

Is there a link or source where Chomsky says this?

[Hexen]

In the corporate world there's only two types of people, the slaver owner and slave. Therefore the slaves will inevitably rebel against their masters.

[Political_Chucky]

Its pretty safe to say most people who work in the corporate world are not bad people, but sometimes their jobs make them do "bad" or things that make them feel like shit. laying people off, cutting wages, selling bad products for example for the exchange of their well being.
I worked with someone who had worked at AI(Art Institute) as a college recruiter. She would always tell us stories about how corporate America was brutal. She oversaw a department for the school and was told by her boss she had to layoff so many people after they were audited in the next week. She did what she was told and did such a good job saving them money, they layed her off the following week.:rolleyes:

[Hexen]

Looks like Corporations only use (and abuse) and dispose people like used batteries when their no longer useful to them hence laying them off and the process repeats itself.

[YouSSR]

That's not what Chomsky says. He says "it's not that they're bad people, it's that the institutions make them act this way." This isn't a value judgement about the individuals who could be horrible or wonderful, rather it's a statement that such a judgement is irrelevant and totally impossible to make regardless.

You can be the best person in the world, or think you are, and still be required to seek maximum profits as a CEO. Otherwise, you're out and the shareholders/board of directors find someone new who is not a bad person, but is more willing to follow directions. CEOs are just as much slaves to the system as anyone else, this is why Marxists deal with vast social forces rather than individuals.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm afraid Chomsky is losing it when he says people who work for corporations are "not bad people." Ward Churchill is right when he said they are "little Eichmanns." I'm not talking about some lowly guy working at McDonalds flipping burgers. I'm talking about the lawyers and technocrats, CEOs, accountants, etc. What do you guys think???
No, Chomsky is at least partly right.
It is no business whatsoever for revolutionaries to pass moral judgement. These people have taken up a role in the process of production, one that would have to be taken up without regard to the specific individual who works as a lawyer at BP for instance. Someone has to do it, and it makes little sense to morally demonize these people, even though we may personally despise them.

[Cencus]

It all depends on what your definition of a bad person is.

If you believe a person who acts in a manner that is detrimental to others without understanding or knowledge of the consequences upon others is evil, then the upper levels of corporations are definitely bad folks.

On the other hand if you believe that to be a bad person you must be aware and understand the extent of suffering you inflict, then most board members are not bad.

Personally I go for the second line, but this does not mean corporate officers are not my enemy, they are they just don't know it. :lol:

[Tavarisch_Mike]

We all get deformed by wageslavery in some way.

[IndependentCitizen]

Unfortunately, you have to find a way to make ends meet. Even if that means working for a corporation. All I can say to those working for the corps, just milk them of the perks and demand more.

[Delenda Carthago]

This is a classical question which comes when we lost our way and we forgot who we are.The revolutionaries are not some outside-of-the-society-monks who spent their lives wondering what revolution will be like.The revolutionaries are excaclty those who work for the evil coprorations,those who are beeing exploited,those who have the intrest for things to change.So,not only working for a corporation doenst make you a "bad"(yikes!what a term)person,but makes you working class.

[MellowViper]

I think Chomsky's actually being realistic, and when you over-demonize people, you could potentially lose people that could be won over to your side.

[Rakhmetov]

There is very little hope of winning these people for our side.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H7eAjifBBCAJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair+uptown+sinclaire+salary+depends&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Answer me this are the lawyers who worked on behalf of United Fruit to be considered good people??? They are defending tyranny and oppression!!! Same goes for any lawyer or anyone who works for HMOs and makes a fat profit.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/043.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_M._Black :rolleyes:

[Sosa]

people do bad things...does that mean they're "bad" people? being ignorant doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person.


There are "good" people and "bad" people who work at corporations. The act of working there is not what makes a person "bad".

[MellowViper]

Yah, maybe it is hard to win them over, but I don't think calling them bad people is gonna really help the cause in any way. Like, King Louis IV wasn't a bad guy. He was just born into the privileged life he was born into. Personally, he was a descent person, even though he headed a system that was backward and counter to the progress of humanity.

[Rakhmetov]

Yah, maybe it is hard to win them over, but I don't think calling them bad people is gonna really help the cause in any way. Like, King Louis IV wasn't a bad guy. He was just born into the privileged life he was born into. Personally, he was a descent person, even though he headed a system that was backward and counter to the progress of humanity.

King Louis IV [?] was not a bad guy!!! You mean XIV or XVI. Whatever ... I don't know what the hell you mean. All monarchs are hateful, vile, disgusting creatures.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually Henry 2 of england really tried. But once again, it's always the system, not the people, per se.

[4 Leaf Clover]

its quite empty question. He might be good person , but can be ideologicaly wrong by Marxists , you get the drift

[Obs]

Categorising people as 'good' or 'bad' isn't really a great materialist analysis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It comes down to classical Marxist theory.

If you own lots, some or a small part of the means of production, then you are a Capitalist and you are our enemy.

If you work for a wage (I guess we could include average and low-income families that earn a salary in here, in modern times) that does not represent the full fruits of your labour, then you are the working class and we are with you.

Anybody in between - the lawyers, low-level managers and non-owner executives/directors of Capitalist organisations - is part of the petty bourgeois section of society. Whether they are with us or not matters in some respects, depending on particular economic circumstances, but is not crucial to the class struggle.

New question, old answer.

[MellowViper]

King Louis IV [?] was not a bad guy!!! You mean XIV or XVI. Whatever ... I don't know what the hell you mean. All monarchs are hateful, vile, disgusting creatures.

Duh, I meant XVI. I was either tired or I'm Dyslexic with Roman numerals or something. lol. Yah, the position was vile, but Thomas Paine liked him on a personal level. Though you could argue he was a bourgeois revolutionary, he was a lot more left wing than his contemporaries, in that he disagreed with slavery on a moral level and wanted to use taxes for social spending and impose a minimum wage to protect workers. He ultimately wanted him to just serve out the rest of his life as king and then not give the throne to any heir. I think that would have been a more humane route, though I admit I would have wanted something more radical. I would have rather educated him about class struggle and found a way that he could integrate into proletarian life. However, the revolution took an extreme turn, and he was killed, along with his family. If you research the life that the House of Bourbon lived out, it was decadent, but they were pretty much oblivious to the class struggle that was going on outside of Versailles. They weren't intentionally causing people to starve. They just weren't conscious of it, because they were living such a comfortable existence. Its not unlike how Americans and Western Europeans are oblivious to the harsh working conditions of sweat shop workers that make their cheap goods. There's really no reason for them to investigate, because they benefit off of it so much, so they remain ignorant.

[MellowViper]

Categorising people as 'good' or 'bad' isn't really a great materialist analysis.

Well, to me, "good" and "bad" just means, "does an individual have a shred of humanity in them or not?" Are they complete sociopaths that don't value the well being of other members in the human family, that can't empathize with the suffering of other sentient beings, or do they have the ability to join the cause of the working class struggle when the veil of their own ignorance is ripped away to reveal the inner workings of the exploitative machine of human subjugation they directly benefit from?

[t.shonku]

Peoples who work for Corporations have a “holier than thou” attitude, they tend to look down upon other people.

[∞]

What a stupid topic. I'm not going to spend my time and effort holding grudges against some people. A better question should be, who cares?

[Rusty Shackleford]

does this include those who flip burgers for McDonald Corp. Sell garden hoses for Wal-Mart, transport Coca-Cola for Coca-Cola Corp. Drive trains for to transport goods for hundreds of different corporations?

[MellowViper]

does this include those who flip burgers for McDonald Corp. Sell garden hoses for Wal-Mart, transport Coca-Cola for Coca-Cola Corp. Drive trains for to transport goods for hundreds of different corporations?

Yah, I was wondering that too but just assumed he meant CEO's and chairmen.

[Obs]

Well, to me, "good" and "bad" just means, "does an individual have a shred of humanity in them or not?"
That's really not great materialist analysis, either.

[CAleftist]

Personal feelings and beliefs mean nothing in Marxism.

It's the material conditions we should focus on changing, not the individuals who happen to be exploiting people because it's in their job description.

[MellowViper]

Personal feelings and beliefs mean nothing in Marxism.

It's the material conditions we should focus on changing, not the individuals who happen to be exploiting people because it's in their job description.

Yah, the conditions need to be changed, but if you want to really change them, you need to try to give people other perspectives, because, after all, the system is controlled by individuals. Society is ultimately a collection of individuals. You have to change things at a personal level, as well as at a systematic level.

[Jalapeno Enema]

There's much to debate about what makes a person "good" or "bad", but without splitting hairs, let's just say a person is to be judged on their actions and intent.

Let's say that killing baby duckies is morally wrong.

You live in a world where killing baby ducks is common because it has a good profit margin.

You own a duck-killing mill. You make good money, albeit via immoral means. You're not a nice person.

Say instead you work middle management, your job isn't to kill ducks yourself, nor did you decide that killing ducks would be how you make your living. Your job is to provide an analysis on how to most efficiently to kill baby ducks, using pie graphs, the data of which revolutionizes duckie-killing techniques. You're a bad, bad person, right? Your actions led to a mass duckie holocaust.

Now let's say you've got a menial job in the company; you're the duck killer. If you don't do the job, they just find somebody else who will; it requires little training, no skill or education, just a blunt instrument, and people need to work. If you quit, your hands are free of duck blood, but how are you going to live? Without a means to support yourself or your family, you're forced to continue duckicide. Are you a bad person now?

[Peace on Earth]

It depends on the level of knowledge the person has of their corporate actions. A lower-level worker on the corporate ladder, while being part of a destructive corporate machine, does not directly harm others by their work. However, a CEO who makes the decision to extend harmful operations into a foreign nation (thereby harming the population and environment) is responsible for the suffering of many people. In that scenario, the CEO (if knowing the consequences of his actions) could be deemed a "bad" person.

People who work for a decent salary within a corporation aren't exactly bad people. They need to survive and they do not know of any other way to do it then the life of consumption that has been presented to the American public for decades. If they had the knowledge that they have the option of getting out of the corporate hierarchy, many would. If they didn't, i.e. staying even though they know the consequences, it stands to reason you could call them "bad."