Corporationism: The corporation as the new tribe in human evolution

The corporation is the new tribe in human evolution.

What is the CEO's — played by Tom Wilkinson — line in the movie, Duplicity, about the struggle between corporations as the current arena for evolutionary progress? Note: When the script is published, I'll quote it.

The economists are the high priests, the witch doctors of the business arena where the hunt is conducted, the battle is fought, the competition is played out for guiding the tribe according to the Golden Rule of Corporationism: "Distribution of profit based on ownership is the foundation of the common good." Tribal members? The shareholders of the corporation ... not the workers. The managers are the tribal leaders. The workers are the wage slaves.

Think back to the dawn of civilization when humans roamed as hunting groups, and the leader of the hunt distributed the kill to the members. There are enough genetically inherited patterns from that period evident in today's business patterns to start me researching the subject. Note: As with Duplicity, I am certain this idea does not originate with me, although it looks like I get to coin "corporationism" in the sense and meaning that it is branch of Capitalism much like Calvinism is an offshoot of the Protestant faith. And I expressly use the religion comparison here for what should be obvious reasons ... to invite the examination of parallels.

This new tribal "structure" with its religion of greed fits the concepts of social Darwinism on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. The "Left" tries to get the corporation/business to pay all the costs of producing its goods and services before declaring a profit. The "Right" says maximizing profit in itself is a legitimate — or sanctioned — act.

For example, looking at health care through the lens of Corporationism, President Obama reveals himself as a true believer in Corproationism as the economic structure to funnel wealth to the top tier of wealth gathers.

The basic political question is, "How is wealth to be distributed in a society?" Remember slavery or feudalism with its lords and vassals? We now have Corporationism as the new form of economic elitism in which the contribution of labor is undervalued for the benefit of whatever new elite has garnered economic and — the resulting — political power. Today we have the “priesthood” of academic economists constructing their “holy bible” to justify this new belief structure … even the god of “The Invisible Hand.”

I happen to believe that the fair distribution of wealth produced by a society to the people who create that wealth is the foundation of the common good for a progressive society. I am anti-slavery, anti-feudalism (with its lords and vassals), anti-monopoly, AND pro-fair labor practices with a living wage for the bottom rung available to anyone able and willing to work in jobs protected by humane health and safety regulations.

A fundamental role of our — the people's — government is to develop and regulate the economic environment that provides the fair distribution of the wealth created within that environment ... including efficient markets to facilitate the exchange of goods and services while paying the costs of producing those goods and services. Note: Money and other pieces of paper having "face value for the bearer" are NOT real goods or services. These financial instruments facilitate the efficient exchange of goods and services across the broad regions of our nation and the globe.

The right of corporations to earn profits is (should be?) bounded by — contained within — the requirement to fairly distribute the wealth they create. For example, costs of environmental pollution should be paid by the corporation creating the pollution. Likewise, costs of injury to workers due to unsafe work practices should be paid by the corporation using such practices. Note: And this is at the heart of the health care debate. Do we fairly distribute health care to all or just to the elite who are defined by having received enough wealth through adherence to Corporationism to be able to afford health care?

And the wealth of our society should be the basis of the guarantee that all participants who are willing and able to work have an opportunity to work at a job that pays a living wage, in other words, a job that provides enough for food, shelter, clothing, education (including child care), health care, and recreation for the worker and his or her family whenever that worker is ready to assume the role of an adult worker in our economy.

What is the point in having a society if its citizens are not provided for? It has been our general view in this nation that the needs of citizens and their families are provided for through the wages and benefits they earn on their work, their jobs. Then it follows that citizens should be given the opportunity to work at jobs that provide for their basic needs ... at a minimum.

And if corporations along with other businesses cannot meet the demand for jobs that pay a living wage for adult workers ... then we need some other market "mechanism" to fill the gap. Typically this has been the "government" (the legal organization of "we the people") contracting with corporations and other businesses to produce goods and services related to infrastructure that improves the business arena for all citizens in the long-term, past the corporate business model's profit cycle for justifying an investment ... such as President Eisenhower and the Federal Highway program.

And so ... President Obama reveals through proffered policy for reforming health care that he is limiting his political solutions to the boundary of the corporate business model's profit cycle — Corporationism — rather than what should be an outer boundary of mechanisms to fairly distribute a nation's wealth ... wealth that is created by that nation's economic environment in which we all have a stake.