Large Corporations: Image Vs Reality

Many readers might have noticed that depictions of people and institutions in popular culture are often at odds with reality. In previous eras, the gap between fictional images and reality was less glaring, because people had access to only one or two sources of information, often under the control of elites. Furthermore the communitarian nature of living in those eras made it difficult to hold opinions and ideas that were at odds with the “majority” even if the consensus was stupid, irrational and suicidal. The spread of ubiquitous communication technologies, such as the internet, and very high levels of social atomization has irreversibly changed that situation. Hence the gap between fiction and reality is now wider and far more obvious.

For example- It is now common knowledge that both sides in the American Civil War were almost equally racist and believers in some kind of mythical white racial supremacy. Likewise, many now know that those who founded the American Republic did so to enrich themselves, rather than start some noble experiment in democracy. Another example is the now widespread understanding that the ‘New Deal’ and other populist sops from the FDR era were driven by political, rather than humanitarian, considerations. However these now common, if somewhat alternative views, are still rarely depicted in mass media which tries to unsuccessfully reinforce the old myths.

One of the widely promoted dissonance in popular culture and media concerns the large gap between the image of various institutions and measurable reality. TV shows are full of noble cops, smart detectives, thoughtful judges, competent and selfless physicians, teachers who care about their students when even a cursory observation of real life suggests that the converse is true. TV and Films (henceforth referred to as ‘Hollywood’) even promote the idea that intelligence agencies are full of competent, motivated and enthusiastic people possessing tons of ‘super-secret’ and useful technologies with an almost omnipotent control over events when events in real life have repeatedly shown that to be wishful thinking.

Let us now explore the dissonance between the media-driven image of large corporations and compare that to observable reality.

The story-lines of many popular films from the last 30-odd years such as Blade Runner, Alien and its sequels, Prometheus, Gattaca, Terminator and its sequels, Robocop and its sequels, Resident Evil and its sequels, Total Recall, Watchmen, The Island, V for Vendetta and many more revolve around or involve large corporations. These large corporations are depicted as being greedy, amoral, omnipotent, led by competent people and based on long-term plans and strategies. But how much of that is reflective of reality?

While there is no argument about corporations being supremely greedy and amoral; the remaining attributes are some combination of mythology, paid propaganda and wishful thinking.

Ask yourself.. Do you see much evidence that corporations led by competent, disciplined, creative and intelligent people? Do they act as if they are led by people with any of those qualities? Do their changing fortunes reflect that? Why do most large corporations cease to exist for a decade or two? Why is the downfall of large corporations usually due to obvious mistakes? Why are these deadly and obvious mistakes rarely fixed in a competent manner? Why do plans to fix obvious mistakes frequently cause larger mistakes? Does the observed behavior and life cycle of large corporations resemble an intelligent entity or a pretty stupid but greedy parasite?

Then there is the issue of large corporate projecting an image of omnipotence and efficiency. Is that really so? Are large corporations capable of anything approaching omnipotence? Are corporations capable of stable governance on the size- and time- scale associated with governments? Can they exist without a friendly government that will help them socialize losses and privatize profits? Do large corporations actually have realistic long-term plans or strategies? Do they have realistic ability to implement them on their own?

Large corporations talk a lot about meritocracy, but does the preponderance of evidence suggest that to be the case? Do you see evidence of corporations promoting competent or intelligent people? Why is promotion inside corporations so dependent on your social network and milieu than any demonstrated ability? Why are the upper ranks of corporations always made up of bullshitters, scammers, sociopaths and other assorted conmen who are good at networking, playing the system or just being lucky? Why are the top executives and decision-makers in corporations almost always clueless about the business models of the enterprises they run? Why do those in top corporate management positions jump ship so frequently, usually after collecting massive bonuses not linked to the long-term fate or outlook of the corporations they head? And why does paying these people tens to hundreds of millions in bonuses for their expertise in making corporations run better in the long-term always achieve the opposite?

Talking about innovation and incentives to innovate.. Why are large corporations so bad at innovating even though they spend so much money, manpower, time and powerpoint shows to make themselves more ‘innovative’? Corporations claim to have ‘superior’ leadership, corporate structure and in-house ‘geniuses’- yet they require so a lot of publicly funded assistance from governments. Why do large corporations require so many tax breaks, direct payouts, protectionist laws and tariffs and sweet-heart deals to even approach profitability? Why do the long-term plans and visions concocted by the best and brightest almost always fail? Can corporations actually put together, let alone implement, any long-term strategy? And yet after all this publicly funded assistance they still fail, implode, run aground, require government bailouts or help with remarkable frequency and regularity. How come?

Why do those who talk about rugged individualism, free enterprise, capitalism, personal responsibility and ‘going galt’ expect to be nursed, coddled and treated like severely sick, retarded or spastic kids? Why do the proud ‘producers’ behave like pathetic ‘moochers’ they claim to detest?

Which brings us back to the main question posed in this post- Why is the Hollywood image of large corporations so incongruous with reality? And why has the degree of dissonance increased over time? In my opinion, the mass media image of large corporations is based in a myth that those in power desperately want others to believe. The media image of corporations is best understood as propaganda and disinformation. It is an attempt to make the masses believe that the current system is “natural”, meritocratic, omnipotent and capable of defending itself. In a way, the media image of corporations is similar to the propaganda pumped out in totalitarian regimes which extols the virtues and greatly exaggerates the power of ruling party, coalition or oligarchic families.

The reality is rather different and rapidly becoming apparent. It is now obvious to a growing number of people that large corporations are pretty much the opposite of what they claim to be. Their apparent successes in the past are increasingly seen as some combination of scam, luck and parasitism. I however do not expect the Hollywood image of corporations to reflect this rapidly growing awareness. It is likely that they will, if anything, double down and amp up the propaganda- because dying parasites have no other option.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. May 6, 2013 at 8:02 am

    bankster bailout=corporate welfare…

    yet you’ve got C.Rudd and all the mighty alter-righties complaining about how high taxes are teh problem and because of HBD and illegal immigration, they are making low wages at their service jobs…

    it’s almost like a feminist bashing low status incel Nice Guys ™ and defending her bf who beats her senseless…

  2. May 6, 2013 at 8:06 am

    many people “know” what is happening….

    corporations are cyphoning off the wealth of the US, when there is no more…they’ll leave….

    It’ll be sink or swim for those who are left in the US-probably won’t be as bad as a Mad Max movie but you will see more third world conditions and extremes between the wealthy and poor-also much less stability. Probably frequent interruptions in things like electricity. A massive police force that shoots first and asks questions later… eh, maybe it willbe as bad as Mad Max…

  3. Hamsta
    May 6, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    I think everyone might be jumping to conclusions. Corporations are just doing what they have to in order to make profits and survive in the area of service they are in. ]

    The image of corporations portrayed in the media and common “knowledge” of the masses is simply a reflection of what most people WANT to believe.

    At the heart of human nature is the deep desire to feel safe and taken care-of. Most ordinary people really want to feel that there are super competent authorities able to anticipate and ward off threats and deal with the bad guys. They also WANT to think that big organizations (government and private) are really looking after their best interests so they don’t have to deal with the numbing anxiety of living with danger on a daily basis.

    So we want to hear a story of security and that’s what we tell ourselves and that’s exactly what the media (“the tribe”) tells us – everything is going to be OK.

    • Webe
      May 8, 2013 at 10:12 am

      You’re kind of leaving out the structure of corporations.
      Corpora means body, so they’re fake human beings, except that they have all kinds of limitations on the normal expectations of human behavior (as bad as that is on an exemplary level). Corporations can and do go broke all the time, skipping out on their obligations (while the money has skipped town). Corporations are hierarchical undemocratic structures (like the military). Corporations can not go to jail and have limited liability. Corporations are calculating, impersonal and amoral, not valuing any form of human community or relationship, but just the bottom line (sometimes) or another monied interest. The “personality” of a corporation is exactly that of a psychopath.

      These are all important characteristics baked into the cake in a way that does not apply to run of the mill human actors, so it’s not like, uh, “they’re just trying to make enough to live.”

  4. Jason
    May 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    The situation may be worse than this.

    Think of why conspiracy theories exist. People need the illusion that those in the highest echelons of power know what they’re doing.

    The main difference between competent and incompetent people has nothing to do with competence, for both the competent and the incompetent are, strictly speaking, incompetent. Rather, competence has to do with recognizing that everyone is incompetent and making the most out of crap situations. I’m saying that incompetent people believe in the possibility of competence, and see it everywhere, frequently in places where it doesn’t exist. The competent person doesn’t make this mistake.

    There are no evil geniuses, man.

    • webe
      May 9, 2013 at 11:25 am

      So true. Most people find far more terrifying the prospect that policy is in the hands of people who don’t get it and are just working on the basis of out-dated conventions than the prospect that those in control have a nefarious detailed master-plan that includes fooling everybody.

      Never ascribe to malificence that which can be explained as stupidity

  5. Ex-employee
    May 9, 2013 at 7:55 am

    You write: “Large corporations talk a lot about meritocracy, but does the preponderance of evidence suggest that to be the case? Do you see evidence of corporations promoting competent or intelligent people? Why is promotion inside corporations so dependent on your social network and milieu than any demonstrated ability?”

    It is almost as if you have worked at that small Redmond based software company that creates something resembling an operating system (but crappier). Because I did, for almost 15 years. When the management, in all it’s wisdom, started to use stack ranking as it’s means to always fire 1/10th of members in any given team *regardless of results*, they even stopped pretending to be “an innovative meritocracy”. Just pure greedy evil. The result is the disaster we see as win8 today. Downhill, and then some.

    • P Ray
      May 11, 2013 at 9:30 pm

      The program manager of Windows 8 got fired – Steve Sinofsky.
      But claiming Microsoft doesn’t do OS-es well is premature.
      They’re already thinking of bringing back the “Start” button in some way for the maintenance release of Windows 8.
      But the bottom 10% of Microsoft are easily STILL world class.
      the problem has always been brown-nosing-no-workers and clueless/useless-manager-psychopaths and their enabler-HR-drones.

  6. DB
    May 23, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    MS and world-class, don’t make me laugh. They make some of the worst software on the planet, rivaled only by Oracle and SAP. Without their monopoly due to shady business deals in the past, they’d be basically nothing. Their only “successes” are Office and Windows, and the consumer products they turn our are basically all crap. Remember the Zune, remember the Windows watch or whatever it was called, remember Windows Phone? The next disaster is waiting: The next Xbox, which they idiotically called “Xbox One”, even though it’s the third one. BTW, Microsoft is so ashamed of their brand identity that they market the Xbox as just that — Xbox — and not as Microsoft Xbox. Let’s see how the Xbone will fare. 😛

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: