Douglas Hinds wrote:
> Hello Roberto,
> Good Post!
> Friday, October 15, 1999, 1:28:41 AM, you wrote:
> RV> I had been thinking, actually, of writing a piece I'd entitle: "How do
> RV> you slay a corporation?" Our ancestors could slay the biggest monster
> RV> of their time, the wooly mammoth. The biggest monsters of our time are
> RV> corporations. ...
> RV> A wounded elephant is very dangerous. A wounded corporation is
> RV> even more so. We now learning how to inflict wounds on a
> RV> corporation, but we have not learned yet how to slay one. But
> RV> we're getting there. Soon, I hope.
> RV> Roberto Verzola
> It is very difficult to slay a corporation and the idea is not very
> compatible with sustainability. Think of them as pests, which you
> don't try to eradicate, but rather control; and the best way to do
> that is by establishing a healthy environment, on a global (literally
> and figuratively) scale, as well as implementing a strategy specific
> to the characteristics of the particular pest and it's needs and
> While corporations obviously have ample means to work against this,
> the battle is there to be waged, from within and without. "Winning"
> requires being as well organized and efficient as a corporation, but
> in a more inclusive, comprehensive way. The "system" is more than
> what "they" take into account, and this is both the strength and
> weakness of the corporations.
> By limiting their focus and ignoring long term and wide spread
> damages, they can concentrate on short term and locally (i.e., good
> for the corporation, according to their own convoluted criteria)
> concentrated benefits.
> However, in the long term, the very factor of being exclusive is what
> generates "better", more universal alternatives outside of it, that
> focus on issues that while harder to define, culminate in a sense of
> the quality of life and even, of life versus death.
> The best case in point that comes to mind is that of big tobacco, It
> took a while, but they seem to be judicially dead, at least for now
> and in only some jurisdictions.
> This is all good theory but in practice, of course SOMEONE has to wage
> the battle and it will take a lot of unity on the part of many to
> accomplish this goal - just like the way a corporation works, with
> different, more limited goals.
> Dale may say that the goals of a "good" corporation are no different
> and he may be right. The problem is, for them to get to be good, they
> have to get their asses good and kicked once in a while. Right Dale?
> They don't do it alone. They do it in the context they are really in,
> once that's made known to (not by) them. Although they may deny that
> (which isn't important - the element of control is).
> In the end, the corporations are made up of people and you are right
> Roberto, in that people can lose control. When that happens, this must
> be corrected from without, in order for the people within to BE
> people again.
> Douglas Hinds
> CeDeCoR, A.C.
> firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: