COMMENSAL ISSUE 91


The Newsletter of the Philosophical Discussion Group
Of British Mensa

Previous Article in Current Issue

Number 91 : March 1998

Next Article in Current Issue


ARTICLES
31st January 1998 : Alan Carr

MORE ON MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Hello Theo, Alan here !

A belated thank you for c90. I have to agree with you, I went off the rails in my last article. I could have refined my points much more but I am still not sure if it could be considered "philosophy". But I feel obliged to say that your criticisms or questions did not possess a strong philosophical content. I suppose I am a closet case anarchist but let me make one point.

Most of us in the world today live in so called democracies - governed by people we elect. These public representatives wield power, power the people bestow upon them in order to maintain the "democracy" (granted some are elected on crime or low tax platforms but my point still stands that they are elected to maintain the democracy, however democratic it may be). The people expect a degree of moral and ethical behaviour from these politicians and get it from the majority.

Now multinational corporations (I don’t wish to apply strict labels as to what is a multinational corporation and what isn’t but I hope you understand) have their power in money or something that has a currency value. They have no mandate from the people. They exist as their name suggests in many countries and hold influence in a large part of our lives, whether we are conscious of it or not: food, energy, materials etc. they do not exist to serve the good of any nation or any other form of land division. They exist to make a profit from whatever activity they engage in. They probably hold a large sway of influence in our political systems through donations to political parties. While I presume each multinational corporation has its own conduct rules, they are not bound to the moral and ethical standards of our governments but wield considerable power over our lives.

This the main thrust of my point. They have a great ability to abuse the power they possess and being multinational they can ignore calls of foul play, environmental damage from individual countries. multinational corporations are a relatively new breed of animal being, I believe, a development of the communications age. They possess the ability to prowl the world looking for the cheapest materials, labour etc. and can move camp quickly as many countries are finding out as they run to Asia. I accept that not all multinational corporations are as ruthless as I have suggested but the ability to abuse their power remains unchecked for the most part.

Now this isn’t really philosophy and doesn’t fit the Commensal and doesn’t belong on its pages, but I feel obliged to refine my thoughts after that crude effort.

I would be interested on your thoughts on my thoughts, but you are busy with two SIGs.

I hope to send articles for Commensal next week.

I hope I made some sense.

Alan Carr


Alan : Contrary to your remarks towards the end of your article above, I thought what you've written is eminently suitable for Commensal and should appear within its pages. As you say, you have thought out your case a little better than perhaps you had done in your previous contribution. I'm not out of sympathy with what you have to say, by the way.

Incidentally, there was some correspondence in January in The Economist about the influence of small states & micro-states on global accountability which is vaguely related to multi-nationals. You might have views on this. You'd need to get the back issues from a library unless you subscribe yourself.

Your question is "what is the greatest good a government has to provide in a democracy". You answer this by suggesting that it is preservation of the democracy and suggest that multi-nationals are somehow inimical to this. Isn’t the whole point of a democracy the preservation of individual freedom, and isn’t the freedom of assembly one of the core freedoms ? Following on from this, isn’t the formation of a multi-national, maybe even in opposition to national governments, the apotheosis of this freedom ?

Governments do, however, ultimately have control over multi-nationals. Assets can be sequestered. Bank accounts can be frozen. Perhaps the greatest ever conflict between a state & a multi-national was between church & state in the reformation. I expect the Roman Church was the greatest multi-national corporation the world has seen, but Henry VIII liquidated its English chapter - for selfish reasons & with mixed benefits. A prior example was the suppression of the Templars in 1307-14 by King Philip IV the Fair of France with the assistance of Pope Clement V, himself a Frenchman. A subsequent example is Pope Clement XIV’s suppression of the Jesuits, in 1773, under pressure from the governments of France, Spain, and Portugal.

I'd be interested to know whether you & others thought my rather abrasive comments last time on a couple of issues were likely to discourage contributions. I want to keep the SIG on the straight & narrow, so to speak, but don't want to confuse this path with my own views. Nor, of course, do I want to be scratching about for material.

Theo



Previous Article in Current Issue (Commensal 91)
Next Article in Current Issue (Commensal 91)
Index to Current Issue (Commensal 91)