Corporate Personhood

[Agent Ducky]

I know there's been a lot of controversy lately in the United States regarding corporations' status as people. I know a Supreme Court case in the 19th century designated corporations as individuals/people. And that a recent Supreme Court decision decided: corporations= people, people have free speech, speech=money, so corporations can spend unlimited money on political/campaign causes. Which is all quite appalling, and has been brought up at OWS, etc.

So my question is, what about other countries? Are corporations considered "people" in other countries? (Canada, the UK, other European countries?) I've heard conflicting sources and I'm trying to get my facts straight. On one hand, it seems like it could be one of those "stupid American" things, but on the other hand, it seems characteristic to capitalist societies. Just curious.

Admins/mods, you can move this thread if you don't think it belongs in learning.

[Le Rouge]

I never heard of such thing in Canada. So i can't say if corporation here are considered people or not.

[Agent Ducky]

I never heard of such thing in Canada. So i can't say if corporation here are considered people or not.

Same thing my Canadian friends said when I asked them. :/
Except one of them said corporations are considered people in all the countries, but since everyone else was so unsure it didn't seem right...

[The left is right]

My mom is studying to be a lawyer and knows for a fact that corporate personhood is legal here (in Ireland). She also said this was most likely the case in at least the whole of the western world, probably in most other countries too.

But when you think about it it makes sense. Whatever America does is followed by all the other countries in this globalized world.

[Sixiang]

I found these just from a quick search:

http://ask.metafilter.com/143941/corporate-personhood-around-the-world
http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1177965-does-canada-have-corporate-personhood-like.html

So it seems that under most countries whose legal systems are based on the English model follow the idea that corporations are persons to some extent or another (although I think America's is the most extreme). Asian and African court systems are obviously quite different from the former British empire's. That's all I can really contribute, though.

[Revolutionair]

In Holland there are basically 4 types of corporation:
- Eenmanszaak (one-person company), the propertier is legally responsible.
- Vennootschap onder firma (gathering under firm), the propertiers are legally responsible.
- Besloten vennootschap (closed gathering), the company is its own legal person.
- Naamloze vennotschap (nameless gathering), the company is its own legal person.

[Mr. Natural]

Yes, Agent Ducky, corporate personhood is characteristic of capitalist society: advanced capitalist nations where the capitalist SYSTEM has achieved near-complete domination of all aspects of life. This is a mental as well as physical imprisonment. The human being is living in a social ecosystem constructed of capitalist values and institutions.

Next stop: see Orwell's 1984. The surveillance technology now available to capitalist states is already dismaying and it steadily advances. The theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, recently gushed enthusiastically on the radio about some new developments. One of them would enable someone to enter a room and instantly know all there was to know of the other people there. Think of that!!

Global capitalism means permanent, escalating war against "global terror," i.e., against poor people attempting to protect themselves against the global invader. How 'bout them predator drones--coming soon to a site near you?!!

That capitalist corporations are now persons is dialectically conjoined with persons becoming capitalist institutions. The System has triumphed.

I hate the fucking System with an almost inexpressible passion. Where are other leftists with the open but critical minds--the revolutionary spirit and mentality--necessary to effectively engage our new, horrific realities? Old formulas pertaining to "old capitalism" are obviously outdated. Marx and Engels were revolutionaries, and their scientific socialism and analyses of the human condition would have advanced as capitalism and the times advanced. Yet, almost without exception, I find the comrades on these left forums reciting mantras from very old, stuck places.

We can do much better than this: anarchist/socialist/communist revolution is possible. But those closed minds--those minds that have seized upon old dogma as a drowning person grabs for a stick ....

My RED-GREEN best in increasingly woeful times.

[Tim Cornelis]

I found these just from a quick search:

http://ask.metafilter.com/143941/corporate-personhood-around-the-world
http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1177965-does-canada-have-corporate-personhood-like.html

So it seems that under most countries whose legal systems are based on the English model follow the idea that corporations are persons to some extent or another (although I think America's is the most extreme). Asian and African court systems are obviously quite different from the former British empire's. That's all I can really contribute, though.

I don't get this. The English legal system (based on common law) was exported to many African and Asian countries.

If it is correct that countries with English-based legal systems have corporate personhood then it would seem all common-law systems have this:

That would mean that all redish coloured countries recognise corporate personhood:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

[Revolutionair]

I think it's more likely that all except for the yellow countries recognize corporate personhood.

Please note that corporations who freely trade stocks (in Dutch this would be the NV or in English the Nameless Gathering), have no real propertier. It would be impossible to hold the propertiers responsible because every second the propertiers change.


edit:
I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the world's governments recognize corporate personhood. Please note that even in the case of corporate personhood: if the capitalist does not do everything he can to make a profit, or at least avoid losses, he is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE. That means that the board of directors are legally required to exploit to the best of their ability. Let me repeat: in a capitalist society, you are legally required to be exploited.

[Robespierre Richard]

More like corpoRAT personhood, eh? Hehehe.

But yeah not sure about that map. I know that in Russia there is corporate personhood, though the legal name for it is Judicial Person (rather than Physical Person). Not sure of anything else though.

[Ostrinski]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.pngWhere is the key for this?

[Revolutionair]

Where is the key for this?

Like I already said, it is safe to say that all except for the yellow countries recognize corporate personhood.

[Ostrinski]

I don't think that corporate personhood is something that we should really be fighting against. I mean, if the working class is going to seize power anyway, then the more the economy centralizes the better. Less work for the proletariat to do.

[Revolutionair]

I don't think that corporate personhood is something that we should really be fighting against. I mean, if the working class is going to seize power anyway, then the more the economy centralizes the better. Less work for the proletariat to do.

You are right that corporate personhood is futile to fight against. But the rest of your comment makes me go: :confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

Where is the key for this?

Key? What do you mean (language barrier?), source perhaps?

That would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_legal_systems


I think it's more likely that all except for the yellow countries recognize corporate personhood.

Actually, I've been googling some bit and it seems (not completely sure) that corporate personhood is exclusive to common law legal systems.

That would mean that countries like Ireland, USA, Canada, India, Australia, and Malaysia recognise corporate personhood while civil law countries (e.g. Russia, the Netherlands, France), do not.

but that's merely assuming.

[Ostrinski]

My bad, I'm a dumbass. I thought the image represented something else.

[Revolutionair]

Key? What do you mean (language barrier?), source perhaps?

That would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_legal_systems

Dutch:
De sleutel is de legenda, dus wat de kleurtjes betekenen.
Dat is in jouw geval dus:

Legal systems of the world
blue:
Civil law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29)
red:
Common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law)
brown:
Bijuridical (civil and common law, also known as mixed jurisdiction)
green:
Customary law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law)
yellow:
Shariah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah)





Actually, I've been googling some bit and it seems (not completely sure) that corporate personhood is exclusive to common law legal systems.

That would mean that countries like Ireland, USA, Canada, India, Australia, and Malaysia recognise corporate personhood while civil law countries (e.g. Russia, the Netherlands, France), do not.

but that's merely assuming.

If corporate personhood refers to legal responsibility, then I am 100% sure that the Netherlands recognizes both the BV and the NV as their own legal persons. Source: I study economics. You can look it up in the basic books for high school as well. Die van M&O en economie. Ik heb ergens nog kopieën liggen, maar niet hier.


A question to those reading this:
Who is legally responsible for corporations like Heineken or Shell?

The propertiers of these corporations literally change every 0.01 second. The board of directors are only responsible in case of deliberate mismanagement (IE refusing to lay off workers etc.).

[Sixiang]

I don't get this. The English legal system (based on common law) was exported to many African and Asian countries.

If it is correct that countries with English-based legal systems have corporate personhood then it would seem all common-law systems have this:

That would mean that all redish coloured countries recognise corporate personhood:

*pic*
I'm in no way an expert on this issue or even well read. I studied law briefly in a high school U.S. government class and that's about it. I was just throwing out first impressions and quick links.



A question to those reading this:
Who is legally responsible for corporations like Heineken or Shell?

The propertiers of these corporations literally change every 0.01 second. The board of directors are only responsible in case of deliberate mismanagement (IE refusing to lay off workers etc.).
Well, I assume the CEO, CFO, all the other fancy acronym high-up positions, the boards of trustees and directors, and all the shareholders are responsible. Of course shareholders can easily sell their shares and higher-ups can resign and take their nice pension check and go on their way to retirement or more capitalist adventures. So whoever is responsible for corporations can and probably does change quite a bit and is dispersed among an elite group as opposed to just one person. I don't know anything about Heineken or Shell other than that they are beer and gasoline companies, so if you were wondering about some exception sorry if this is useless information.

[Renegade Saint]

If corporate personhood refers to legal responsibility


I don't believe that's what 'corporate personhood' means, at least in the US context. Here it refers to the notion that corporations have legal rights, specifically constitutional rights. IE, corporations have a 'right' to free speech, since that's a constitutionally guarunteed right. Or that corporations have a 'right' not to have their property seized (without going through the emminent domain process and compensating the corporation).

[Agent Ducky]

I don't think that corporate personhood is something that we should really be fighting against.
I know. I'm just curious about the legal status in other countries.

[MotherCossack]

. I mean, if the working class is going to seize power anyway, then the more the economy centralizes the better. Less work for the proletariat to do.[/QUOTE]
----------------------------------------------------------------look up there-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i agree with this i think....
but the first bit makes me go errr
why is it futile to fight corporations.
or even moreso their attempts to assume human form!!!!
(bloody cheek)..
they fuck me off, steal our stuff ,
destroy the planet, fuck me off more,
and steal our children, fuck me off a bit more.
and steal our hope.

did i do alright, only its my first time in learning
and i'm a right stupid cow.
(not a clever dick remark just the truth.)

[ColonelCossack]

So we have a new 2016 presidential candidate; Microsoft!

[Drosophila]

Corproate personhood is often portrayed by centrists as the reason why our politicians are so corrupt. The truth is that even if corporate personhood wasn't legal, there would be no one to enforce the laws (not to mention the fact that the laws would likely be lenient).

[GPDP]

Corproate personhood is often portrayed by centrists as the reason why our politicians are so corrupt. The truth is that even if corporate personhood wasn't legal, there would be no one to enforce the laws (not to mention the fact that the laws would likely be lenient).

This is kind of a shaky argument, as it just gives ammo to the reformist to say that if that's the case, then we need to push for strong anti-corporate laws. What needs to be said instead is that capitalism tends toward increased monopolization and conglomeration of wealth. Corporate personhood or not, companies tend toward becoming bigger and bigger. You could possibly employ anti-trust laws or what have you to break up big companies or limit their growth, but where do you draw the line? When is a company too big? And what kind of bloated bureaucracy would one have to employ to manage this?

And we haven't even gotten into how capitalism is inherently exploitative, even in the small business, government-regulated utopia these liberals have a hard-on for.

[Mr. Natural]

Corporate "personhood" marks a major advance of the capitalist SYSTEM and must be opposed as surely as The System, itself, must be fought.

Corporate "personhood" is also a manifest outrage that regular people easily understand and will organize against.

It is a measure of the theoretical impoverishment of what is left of the left that organization against corporate "personhood" is being led by liberals. And how is it possible that the left, in Occupy Wall Street protests, hasn't brought the capitalist system, itself, into question?

There are ways to create revolutionary paths into a glorious human future, but they aren't the old ways and paths that have failed everywhere. Marx and Engels got capitalism right for their times, but The System has continued to develop, while revolutionary organizing theory has become a museum piece.

Marx and Engels are dead, dammit! Where are their current comrades who must update theory and praxis????