In cases where it's not the individual CEO, but the position -- where social framing conditions make it so that most people who would take up that position share the same deadend worldview that would cause them to commit the same atrocities -- where[,] then[,] do we place the levers and the fulcrums? Do we go CEO to CEO, "removing" them one by one? We always hear that the machine-like characteristics of corporations mean the CEOs are simply cogs -- albeit large ones -- in their community-destroying institutions, and[,] so[,] it would do no good to remove them. It's an odd argument to make . . . . There are few who suggest that simply because arresting or killing one rapist does not stop other men from raping, that this means we should not stop whatever rapists we can [--] through any means necessary. Yet when it comes to CEOs[,] the argument seems to hold: Someone else will just take this one's place, so we must not stop this one personally. In fact, we must allow him [it's usually a him] to continue to be rewarded with millions of dollars per year in salaries and stock options. Where are the fulcrums to stop these people, these institutions? Where are the bottlenecks?
~Endgame, Vol. I by Derrick Jensen.
6 comments:
We always hear that the machine-like characteristics of corporations mean the CEOs are simply cogs -- albeit large ones -- in their community-destroying institutions, and[,] so[,] it would do no good to remove them.
If that's true, then there is absolutely no reason to be rewarding CEO's compensation 800 times that of their average worker. If they're just one more cog, they should be paid just like all the other cogs.
Second what Flory said!!!
(oh, that odious picture of a smug Skilling sitting in the steel of the soon-to-be-memorial to corporate greed and corruption, Enron Center South...they barely got to start occupying when the truth came out, somehow I don't think anyone in the corporate world has really learned anything, besides how to better cover their executive keisters)
Blessings for 2007...we will need them!
Elspeth
I ran right over to visit but got here too late, or did I?
Exactly, flory. CEOs have become interchangeable parts, not specialists in a particular industry, but financial manipulators who can apply the same principles anywhere to serve narrow interests instead of common ones.
I say regulate the salary spread back to the good ol' 50s Laura's attire so celebrates.
-- cs, art is bread
I recommend readers of this blog check out books about the Mondragon Cooperatives in the Basque Region of Spain. This group of cooperatives grew from 1 company in 1957 to more than 250 in the following years.
We need to think outside the box of our current paradigm of hierarchical corporate structure and create a democratic structure that is fostered by the ideas of the Mondragon cooperatives.
The management of the companies is hired in by the employees. They come from within the company and are accountable to the employees. The principles of Mondragon create a community working together for the good of all, including healthcare, retirement, banking, education. In order to handle conflict, structures have been created to mediate the needs of the participants.
The current structures of doing business are changeable! We need to do an end-run around the current structures and create structures that result in outcomes that nurture our communities and foster egalitarian goals.
At a time in the 80's when Spain had a 25% unemployment rate, the Mondragon Cooperatives pulled in their belts and kept going.
If they have to downsize a failing business, the employees get new training and a new enterprise to work in that has been created by their Research and Development Group.
These cooperatives foster a cohesive strength in the local areas -- you would never have a business layoff people to outsource the work to a foreign country.
I've read a number of books on Mondragon and seen a video. They've found ways to solve some of the financial underwriting problems that the earlier English cooperatives encountered.
Their motto is "We Build the Road as we Travel" which means they are willing to take a look at something that isn't working and to change in midstream. It is a very organic process and requires the ability to trust in the group to be able to work through the problems to find solutions.
The old paradigm is not set in cement. WE create the structures we live in and we can create structures that foster everything we decide is fair and just.
Thanks for listening. This is a soapbox that I've felt very strongly about for about 15 years. I get frustrated because I recognize my own limitations in conveying the basis of the ideas of Mondragon -- I'm not an economist (my father was, though!) and I'm not college-educated. But I've worked in Corporate Headquarters America for 35 years and I've seen inequality that should not exist in this world. It doesn't need to be. We can rethink how we work together. We can make our structures support us in ways we need. We just need to share information like this -- I hope someone out there can clamp on to this and do something with it to foster these ideas in a larger sphere.
> There are few who suggest that simply because arresting or killing one rapist does not stop other men from raping, that this means we should not stop whatever rapists we can
CEO's of publicly traded corporations are required to be rapists. They have a legal mandate to "maximize shareholder value". No matter who you stick in the CEO spot, if they pass-up a chance to make a buck, they can be sued. Their conscience is not allowed to interfere in the profit-making process just to save the environment or recognize the worth of people.
Any costful 'good' that they perform has to be justified as "public relations that will make/save money in the long run". The system is broken, and turning-out one batch of rapists for another won't help.
Post a Comment