12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutI just see it as a pre-condition for a peaceful and civil survival in our modern world. Our society has the veneer of placidity, but we all know that a rip in the very fabric of society can occur at any given time and great personal harm could befall you or your loved ones. If that does happen, i want to know the society in which i am a member will exert all force necessary to aprehend the criminals and bring some form of punishment to them in proportion of the crime.
strange it is indeed that so called democratic societies elect a government that oppresses them and that these societies see this as a necessary precondition for good governance. where as individuals in these democratic societies would not admit to voluntarily working for a company employing the same tactics.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutThey deliver because they know their contracts are enforcible by law. No judicial system functions without force as, at least, a last resort solution. At least I can't think of any.
i am not a CEO of a functioning organization and am far removed from their operating environment so I am unable to answer you, however I can see that they deliver. so put this question to someone in the hierarchy and i am sure they have answers for you.
One may imagine systems that would work without force for a majority of citizens, but will always be a number of people that need to be dealt by force if the number of individuals is large.
12 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by moweutState power is maintained through two general means: ideology and repression.
Develope this thread along the lines of : is violence a necessary function of the modern state, are there alternatives, why is violence used so extensively, is organisation impossible without violence.
do modern multinational companies employ violence in any form and if so how, if not then why is it necessary for a state and not necessary for a multinatio ...[text shortened]... ; some multinational have greater worth and more influence than small violence employing states.
The Ideological State Appartus (ISA) consists of all institutions of culture, including schools, churches, the arts, the mass media, etc. These serve collectively to maintain the status quo and squelch dissent, partly by permitting a limited degree of institutionalized dissent (liberal English professors, for example). The structure is hegemonic, cultivating individual participation in the restriction of freedom.
When the ISA fails, the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) kicks in. The RSA is the police power--local, state, and federal law enforcement; the military; the denial of essential services (welfare, health, education, etc.) to those that had become dependent (make no mistake about the need of modern post-industrial societies to maintain a class on the public dole).
The hegemonic function works, in part, because the threat of violence is ever-present.
The major failure of the Rumsfeld-Bush plan in the war against terrorism is the underdevelopment of the ideological side. I'm not referring to the failure to woo the American people when the body count goes up, although that is clearly significant in a national context; rather, the failure to address effectively the ideological needs of Islamic societies dooms the police power. Neither the ISA nor the RSA can function for long without the other.
As for your second question, it may be that the world's governments are themselves mere functionaries in the RSA and to a lesser extent the ISA in the maintainance of corporate power. I would use the term transnational corporations, instead of multi-national because these corporations do not so much work within several nations as they work outside the authority of all of them.
On a micro scale, anyone that has been denied a raise, experienced a demotion, or been fired understands the RSA in the world of business. Those working for Total Quality Management (TQM) companies should be able to explain the function of the ISA (hegemony) in the corporate world more ably than I.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by lordhighgusI see the "rip" as a product of the society itself and believe that these rips just dont come out of nowhere. There is a cause and a reason.
I just see it as a pre-condition for a peaceful and civil survival in our modern world. Our society has the veneer of placidity, but we all know that a rip in the very fabric of society can occur at any given time and great personal harm could befall you or your loved ones. If that does happen, i want to know the society in which i am a member will exert ...[text shortened]... to aprehend the criminals and bring some form of punishment to them in proportion of the crime.
I also see these rips as far more likely to occur in a society that is governed by violent repression.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaTransnational corporations deliver successfully across a broad spectrum of political systems. Some you will find delivering in countries/situations where the enforcement of laws and contracts is minimal. Once again I am unable to shed light on their methods but am able to confirm this delivery. I defy you to find any even small nook on this planet that has not been touched by their products
They deliver because they know their contracts are enforcible by law. No judicial system functions without force as, at least, a last resort solution. At least I can't think of any.
One may imagine systems that would work without force for a majority of citizens, but will always be a number of people that need to be dealt by force if the number of individuals is large.
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutMinimal is not non-existing. The mere fact that borders exist implies that no country is free from force.
Transnational corporations deliver successfully across a broad spectrum of political systems. Some you will find delivering in countries/situations where the enforcement of laws and contracts is minimal. Once again I am unable to shed light on their methods but am able to confirm this delivery. I defy you to find any even small nook on this planet that has not been touched by their products
12 Nov 06
Originally posted by WulebgrA good post though I think talking about transnational corporations is a bit misleading. Corporations are simply legal tools and ascribing to them attributes of "power" and "influence" is fetishism. The holders of power are human beings and corporations, transnational or otherwise, are merely a device.
State power is maintained through two general means: ideology and repression.
The Ideological State Appartus (ISA) consists of all institutions of culture, including schools, churches, the arts, the mass media, etc. These serve collectively to maintain the status quo and squelch dissent, partly by permitting a limited degree of institutionalized dissent ( ...[text shortened]... be able to explain the function of the ISA (hegemony) in the corporate world more ably than I.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough individuals run corporations in theory, they lose their their power if they go against the momentum of the corporation itself. Thus, the irony that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of individuals was first applied by the Supreme Court to the protection of faceless corporations was a mere harbinger of the world in which we now live.
A good post though I think talking about transnational corporations is a bit misleading. Corporations are simply legal tools and ascribing to them attributes of "power" and "influence" is fetishism. The holders of power are human beings and corporations, transnational or otherwise, are merely a device.
Marx described such attributions of power as fetishism, and he was correct in the nineteenth century. But, the world of late Capitalism has taken on features that are beyond Marx's nightmares.