Home Diversity Liberals are not Against Big Corporations

Liberals are not Against Big Corporations

2
418
Thumb1

The history of corporations reaches back to the medieval era when a group of people or a company would be authorized by the state to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law to carry out specific tasks. Since – constitutions and policies around corporate formation have changed.

Registered corporations possess legal identity, and their shares are owned by shareholders whose liability is generally limited to their investment. Hence, they do not actively manage a corporation. Shareholders instead- elect or nominate a board of directors to control the corporation in a fiduciary breadth.

Because of their given structure and the personhood status, corporate entities have grown into the political arena. Hence- the combination of having personhood privilege, limited liability of its stakeholders, and the collective state of the corporation has placed at a significant advantage.

Over the past few decades, large companies have discovered ways to play the political game. Today, Companies dedicate massive reserves to politics, and their large-scale involvement increasingly redirects and cramps the functions of the political conformity. The outgrowth of such compliance has paralyzed democracy and has created an environment that remunerates lobbying over innovation.



Before the 1970s, only a handful of corporations had their lobbyists. But today, almost every corporation has put aside humongous funds for political lobbying purposes.

In the 1960s and the early 1970s, when United States Congress enacted a series of new social regulations to address a spectrum of environmental and consumer safety interests, the business community lacked both the political will and the political aptitude to stop that movement.

Image for post
Photo by Jacek Dylag on Unsplash

The new social regulations, together with the plummeting economy, triggered the corporate involvement in politics. After that, corporations hired lobbyists and began paying attention to politics. Still, the entity’s political engagement and lobbying practices in the 1970s were mostly reactive, as they were trying to stop the sustained progress of the regulatory state. They were fighting a proposed consumer protection agency, trying to stop labor law reform. Today corporate lobbyism has taken a proactive form as they are actively seeking legislative change, which is at large fiscally driven.

Today corporate lobbyists have conquered American democracy.

The Concept of Corporatocracy and Corporate Liberalism

Corporatocracy is the term used about an economic and political system that is merely controlled by corporations or corporate interests. The notion describes practices such as bank bailouts, excessive pay for corporate executives as well as objections such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources. It serves as the propagator of globalization, unfair lending practices by banks, and biased “free trade agreements. All said have evolved over the last few decades as the upshot of utter occupation of corporations in the political stage.

In the United States, corruption has become widespread, while business executives spend notable amounts of money, making sure that the government does not regulate their ventures. Corporations have a significant weight on the regulations and regulators that monitor them.

Lately, we can take the corporate involvement on politics even one step further, and witness corporate elite serving both as the chief beneficiaries for the corporations and the chief lobbyists for the supposedly anti-business regulations. The idea, also called Corporate liberalism is when owners of corporations and high up government officials come together to become the class of elites. For instance, today, it is widespread for governments to partner with large entities under the notion of social welfare programs like the Affordable care Act, Medicare Part C, and D.

Corporate liberalism is a principle that opens the door to imperialism. The elite class then conspires or less maliciously, the system inspires the elite to diverge power away from the low or middle class. This is apparently, to avoid the risk of revolution from the poor and powerless, and to prevent the realization of class conflict, the elite has the working-class pick sides in a mock conflict between business and state. The latter is the basis for some liberal democrats being against large corporations. However, practically despite the ideological disparity, most liberal policies, at least in the United States, have been pro Corporate liberalism. Affordable Care Act in the healthcare system is one clear example where the government has subsidized managed care systems and Insurance industries, which have a clear track record of lobbying history.

America is becoming a Liberal State.

Over the past century, the United States has become more and more liberal. Although the reason for the underlying shift still matters of controversy, nonetheless it is my personal belief that such a change is the product of continual immigration from socialist countries or even oppressive nations. In addition to immigration, particular left-wing populist rhetoric over the years has played a significant role in swaying citizens’ minds into a liberal state.

Today America’s Political realm Is liberal more than ever before. The country that was constitutionally almost intolerant towards any form of big government and or government takeover of social issues now is riddled with left-wing statism.


21-st century Corporate medicine and the surge of Neo-Feudalism


Indeed- The American populace is in the spirit of “big government.” The U.S. constituency is more sensitive to left-wing economic policy now than in the past 68 years.

Interestingly to note amid the paradigm shift is that as the corporate influence increases and small businesses suffer a setback due to the lack of competitive edge, so is increasing social issues such as unemployment, and healthcare costs. Of course, the conservative constitutionalist is not passive amidst all the shift, that is why corporations find the way to adapt, as they have for the last few decades. That is, corporations with the help of their power and money have had to go beyond adapting themselves to the situation by clasping the left-wing politics.

Corporations are becoming more than ever Liberal.

It is the common notion that Democrats are against big corporations and Republicans protect the corporate interest. Although there may have been some truth to that in the past, however, it is not valid anymore. Contemporary politics is invariably overtaken by corporate liberalism, with only one difference, and that is they have become industry-specific. For instance, healthcare, environmental agencies, and unions are more left-wing supporters, whereas energy, financial sector, and insurance industries are typically right-wing. We can all watch and listen to politicized topics around these issues in public media almost on a daily basis. Generally, speaking corporations are leaning liberal, merely because the corporate sector is striving to make itself popular enough with each political faction so that politicians will implement pro-corporate policies when in power or do not implement anti-corporate plans.

Also- taking on hot social issues that are the core of the left-leaning bottom line seems to be an excellent strategy to please customers and workers. To the same extent, Companies also realize that being openly conservative Is not to their long-term benefits. Therefore, although their original plan may be to prevail as a business tactically, nonetheless their strategy focuses first to maximize their public support. Surveys suggest- that people prefer the type of brands that embrace liberal ideals like “LGBTQ rights” and “anti- Republican companies,” “Black lives matter,” or “ME TOO movement.”

Image for post
Photo by Mihai Surdu on Unsplash

It was not long ago when anti-corporate sentiment in the U.S. was most energetic on the left. We all caught corporations denounced as being ruthless globalists. And it was plausible to be a liberal saying it, or organizing a protest over it.

Today, while anti-corporatism still has a niche in the extreme liberal rhetoric, it had become a significant component of Republican and conservative discourse as well.

Corporation and Politics are bad Businesses

Mixing business with politics is a high-profile and explosive endeavor, as mentioned earlier. Companies face an increasingly polarized political atmosphere field with scrutiny, a social-media outrage culture, and activists eager to impact corporate eminences. That is also one of many reasons as to why more and more businesses are adapting political identities of their own and responding to social issues. For instance, when Chick-fil-A founder publicly upheld gay marriage, it led to boycotting Chick-fil-A, and the other side reacted by Supporting it. Today the fast-food restaurant has one of the most extended drive-thru lines in California one can imagine. Or Apple declared it would not sponsor Republican National Convention in 2016, and reportedly Google and Walmart did the same.

Globalization is the process of expanding connectivity amongst people from across the globe. The term represents no claims as to whether globalization is beneficial to society, even though adopted by supposedly famous global philanthropists such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Warren Buffett, and George Soros.

Over decades after the fall of the communist iron wall, the socioeconomic globalization took a steep rise. And it would not have been conceivable without the lordship of the corporate cartel and serfs of the populace. Amidst this speedy extension remains a simultaneous concentration in market power. The world’s 1,000 largest companies in 1980 represented only about 30% of the GDP of the OECD nations. By 2010, that number rose to 72%. Today large corporations have captured almost every aspect of the global economy. This trend has Pressured to create some form of relentless consolidation among technology, pharmaceuticals, airlines, and other sectors, reflecting investor pressure to achieve growth through both organic expansion and acquisitions.

Consequent to the rapid expansion of globalization, A wave of anti-globalist protectionism by radical populist factions have evolved, giving rise to extreme Political volatility as one we are witnessing today right here within the USA and across the world. One prominent indicator is- “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism — Donald J. Trump, President of United States.”

The anti-globalization movement is a social movement against economic globalization, which is in contrast to neoliberal globalization.

The hypocrisy of Globalization, politics, and Corporatism

The irony of what described within the context of this article is the utter discrepancy between the average citizen understanding of the corporate and liberal mindset. People today hate corporations, yet are pro-globalization by the hands of the corporate cartels. They are pro middle class and helping the needy, yet turn to politicians who have liberally subsidized corporations that they lousy mouthed in the first place. — It simply doesn’t make sense!

Corporations are like wolves disguised under the sheepskin. To persuade us further, they simply switch between black and white color of the skin.

We are supposedly living in a globalized society. However, the most apparent global phenomenon we witness is the resurgence of nationalism. Some rephrase the latter as protectionism; nonetheless, protectionism is nothing but crony capitalism. Well-connected corporations, through corporate liberalism, request shield from the competition, which the government often awards. The transfers above wealth from all consumers to a few corporations and expands the power and role of government.

“Protectionism is the embodiment of the large and nefarious government.”

What we need is the allocation of the balanced power grid to the local, national, and global levels. Concomitantly a discussion around the proper role of global governance and institutions with more emphasis on control over communities’ towns, counties, cities, states, and much less on countries is a fundamental necessity.


Melting pot State of Immigration


Previous articleBody Language Decoded — Does This Really Work?
Next articleConfessions — I Absolutely Don’t Love Bitcoin
Adam Tabriz, MD
Dr. Adam Tabriz is an Executive level physician, writer, personalized healthcare system advocate, and entrepreneur with 15+ years of success performing surgery, treating patients, and creating innovative solutions for independent healthcare providers. He provides critically needed remote care access to underserved populations in the Healthcare Beyond Borders initiative. His mission is to create a highly effective business model that alleviates the economic and legislative burden of independent practitioners, empowers patients, and creates ease of access to medical services for everyone. He believes in Achieving performance excellence by leveraging medical expertise and modern-day technology.

2 COMMENTS

  1. interesting read, will share with others. My questions:
    how will higher corporate taxes impact corporate bottom line?
    will some industries be nationalized?
    if KH becomes defacto POTUS, how will she use her strong Silicon Valley ties? Will she and Silicon Valley encourage start ups and new entrepreneurs? Or will they view start-ups and entrepreneurs as competitors? I truly hope that established Silicon Valley firms will recall their early innovative days. Many have also funded start ups or at least track their progress, then purchase them and successfully integrate them into their core businesses. I have been in Wall Street IT since 1983 and have utilized many Silicon Valley IT services, have long admired their commitment to innovation. Hope KH and established Silicon Valley firms will encourage continued innovation. If so GDP mayl grow well and Treasury coffers may be recovering

  2. Globalism is the connected world and also the global world order, managed at the global level, as in Agenda 21 and in the idea that there are industries delegated to either the developed or developing world which Senator Rubio talks about in his report, Made in China 2025 and the Future of American Business.

    Agenda 21 is the liberal side of globalism and the concept of a global industry world order, as described in Rubio’s report, is the conservative side, reflecting how I think you are identifying liberalism and conservatism in your article.

    Global connectivity needn’t be synonymous with the global world order. The world can function through interactive local power. Perhaps that is how the world is reorganizing today, in part spurred on by corona virus, and in part because its the natural return of the pendulum swing.

    Both directions will always be competing for dominance. There are environmental concerns that everyone shares interacting with globalist business agendas such as starlink which conceives of the entire world being online, inescapable and everywhere. Anything of that scale impacts everyone from multifarious perspectives. The world needs a balance of powers. Its a delicate balance with needs that transform with time.

    There is a very thin line between corporations and the state today. I do not know if there exists a large corporation which is not tax payer subsidized. The subsidization helps the corporation to accumulate large concentrations of wealth that is used to lobby the government. One might wonder if we were not subsidizing the corporations, would they have less money to lobby the government? Also would the corporations be smaller and less powerful, if not tax payer subsidized? Can we do this another way? Time for a re-think!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here