4 ms·

This is kind of a motte and bailey fallacy, the motte "everything is political" and the bailey of "what politics should corporations have, and for that matter i

This is kind of a motte and bailey fallacy, the motte "everything is political" and the bailey of "what politics should corporations have, and for that matter its employees". That leads to some ominous answers as a corporation is purely in the business of making money, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is simply internal policy for operating the organization, and can be done for any number of reasons. Ideology in work is for a privileged few, and the vast majority simply trade their labor for a paycheck. We would be better off recognizing this reality.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Your bailey makes no sense as it isn't a position.
- EVdotIO 6y ago
  Okay, to clarify, the bailey is "corporations and people that make up the organization are explicitly political".
Spivak 6y ago
These aren’t mutually exclusive. A corporation acting purely out of motivation to make money is still inadvertently making political decisions whether the company considered them or not. This doesn’t mean that companies have to change their tune but it doesn’t mean that they are absolved of the consequences of their decisions.
- EVdotIO 6y ago
  If exploitive or discriminatory practices exist, it's for our laws and courts to lay out the framework to address this and redress those impacted. If we have unaccountable agencies in government there should be mechanisms to dissolve them. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but the aim should be decentralizing power. If there are failings in government, it's best to address the problems there. I'm not saying corporations won't expand its power over government if given the ability to do so, it's absolutely in its best interest to do so. The issue is they shouldn't be able to in the first place. A corporation is in essence an absolute dictatorship, and really shouldn't be given the power to exert an ideology over anything other than the purview of running the organization.

whimsicalism 6y ago

Your bailey makes no sense as it isn't a position.

EVdotIO 6y ago
Okay, to clarify, the bailey is "corporations and people that make up the organization are explicitly political".

Spivak 6y ago

These aren’t mutually exclusive. A corporation acting purely out of motivation to make money is still inadvertently making political decisions whether the company considered them or not. This doesn’t mean that companies have to change their tune but it doesn’t mean that they are absolved of the consequences of their decisions.

EVdotIO 6y ago
If exploitive or discriminatory practices exist, it's for our laws and courts to lay out the framework to address this and redress those impacted. If we have unaccountable agencies in government there should be mechanisms to dissolve them. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but the aim should be decentralizing power. If there are failings in government, it's best to address the problems there. I'm not saying corporations won't expand its power over government if given the ability to do so, it's absolutely in its best interest to do so. The issue is they shouldn't be able to in the first place. A corporation is in essence an absolute dictatorship, and really shouldn't be given the power to exert an ideology over anything other than the purview of running the organization.