|
see?
there is no incoherence at the level of "what is this thread about?"
but there are radically opposed notions of what is and is not public, where corporate activity falls along that gradient (between the two terms public/private)---and from that both (a) different conceptions of the relationship between economic activity and politics (conservatives would have economic activity be wholly separate from politics, following from their insistence on the public/private split as absolute--so there is nothing to be done by anyone--stakeholder or not--in shaping corporate action--which is assumed to be necessarily for the best in this the best of all possible worlds. needless to say, i think this view worthless--indefensible analytically, disastrous politically)
and
(b) on that basis very different views of whether and how to take bush seriously when he makes some empty gesture toward the rest of us by saying "maybe executive pay levels are a bit out of whack--gentlemen, please think about that--no pressure--not to worry--we know that corporations are owned by the private individuals who invest in them and that everyone who controls capital is exemplary in every way and so we would never dream of telling you, holder of capital, what to do because, well, you are better than most people: wiser, possessed of a broader view, acting with collective interest at heart."
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|