BechtelTheCorporation(themovienottheactualone)

** Director: **Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott ** Release year: **2003    The central argument of this film is clearly that corporations are cause major problems for society today. It is heavily engrained in our culture today to think of corporations as “good” because they provide us with many services that we normally take for granted. The truth, however, is that corporations cause far more problems than they solve. While they may provide the upper class with several convenient services, they create a serious number of externalities elsewhere. Popular fortune five hundred companies are responsible for causing environmental devastation, worker exploitation, and many other direct problems which we are facing today. So why don’t we stop them from causing these problems? The fact is that the corporation is today’s dominant institution. They have enough ownership and political control to, in effect, do nearly anything that they see fit; even if this means putting entire populations at risk of death. One term that the movie used to describe how corporations act is that they cause intergenerational tyranny. This means taking actions today which will lead to suffering and devastation in the future. Corporations are themselves, a major sustainability problem.
 * Title: **The Corporation
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

** What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **  __Invention of the Corporation __  Corporations are not something inherently part of our political or economic system as it was originally designed, but are a modern interpretation of what used to be the corporate charter. The corporate charter was originally a government regulated group of individuals coming together to solve a specific problem and help benefit the public. This ideology makes sense, but is far from what a corporation is today. The Fourteenth Amendment, which most people associate with the abolition of slavery, is actually interpreted to give corporations the equal rights and government protection of individuals. So why is this bad? Unlike humans, who all have some sense of right and wrong, the only thing that corporations value is economic prosperity. The film compares the corporation with the description of a psychopath. Simply put, corporations today have no social responsibility. As the film further describes, this does not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the CEO or anyone else in the organization, but is inherently part of what the corporation is. Because competition is so important in the market place, the fight to get the upper hand often leads to resorting to illegal and immoral actions by the corporation. These decisions are not made based on people’s feelings of right and wrong, but are careful business decisions. What we have created is a monster.  __Policy and Political Control __  By giving corporations rights equal to those of people, we are also giving them the right to affect change in the government; and this is exactly what they have done. Corporations today arguably have more political influence than actual citizens do. The reason for this is that the resources which corporations have at their disposal are far greater than that of most individuals. For one, they can afford to hire the best and the brightest legal counsel, financial analysts, and scientists to argue their position. Also, corporations can contribute more money to campaign financing and other support for politicians than most people even have to live off of. Furthermore, corporations have a huge amount of control over the economy, especially on the local level. The result is that in many cases, politicians would rather allow corporations to make immoral actions than kick them out and lose a large number of jobs. A very similar example is how the Bolivian government supported the Bechtel Corporation’s ownership of water rights (whose name I am not proud to share). This was so wrong on a moral level, but the leaders must have been shown a significant economic benefit. The result of such monstrous political power is that corporations can get support for almost anything they want to do and thus we have very little control over them. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> __<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Private Ownership of “The Commons” __ <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> As the Bechtel Water Wars example clearly points out, corporations will try to make a profit in any way they possibly can. This means privatizing every single resource that we rely on for our lives. The corporate mindset is that: if we need it, then there is profit to be made by owning and selling it to us. The outcome of this is the extension of private ownership to what is known as the Commons. The Commons comprise every natural resource shared by the inhabitants of Earth. Most notably, this includes the air we breathe and the water we drink. This can also be extended to include land and genetic material, both of which have clearly already become privatized. There is also significant progress towards private ownership air and water. Some experts say it is only a matter of time before every single resources we need to survive has been privatized. If this becomes the case, those who own the resources will be able to do whatever they would like with them, whether it is sustainable or not. This would lead to drastic consequences for the public. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> I found the clarity of the film to be the most persuasive part. Every point which the directors addressed was clearly presented and followed by many solid facts and examples. It would be very difficult to argue that the movie was wrong about what corporations really are. Furthermore, I found it compelling how well the film showed the “personality” of the corporations. This is a completely valid point since corporations are seen as people under our current form of government. I also found that the consideration of many different viewpoints was persuasive. There were several arguments given that were clearly in support of the corporate agenda, but the movie showed that there were major flaws evident in all of these.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> I was not very compelled by the connections the movie tried to make between corporations and fascism. I agree that corporations are immoral and therefore are equally likely to support a fascist regime if it will make them profit, but that doesn’t mean that they any less likely to support a democratic agenda. Clearly corporations are still huge actors in our political system. In fact, I would argue that corporations have more power and control in our government than they do in many constitutional monarchies. There is far less chemical and other health related regulation in our country than in much of Europe.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What audiences does the film best address? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> This film best addresses a very general audience of educated people. It is important that viewers have some knowledge of how current economic and political systems work, but everything else is very clear. Supporters of stricter environmental regulation would clearly see merit in this film, but it also targets skeptics equally well. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 9pt;">This film encourages people to see beyond the veil of the instant gratification that corporations grant society. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">It’s difficult to see, but the way corporations have taken advantage of us our political and economic systems is not beneficial for anyone accept the corporation themselves. A better education (which this movie provides) is really the only way to help people understand what is happening and want to change it. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The environmental educational value of the film would have been greatly improved by including more specific examples of environmental externalities. While the film did frequently mention Shell, BP, and other companies with clear environmental effects, it did not cover very many the specific environmental effects of corporations. It mostly covered how corporations hurt people. It also glossed over the many environmental effects of Monsanto and CAFOs, which are clearly destructive to the environment.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The film suggests that by understanding what the problems of corporations are and how the organizations work we can take back control. Corporations are not indestructible, and their own greed is likely their biggest weakness. If we stop supporting them in the market and unite against their political will, there is little they can do to stop us and before long they will be seriously weakened. Corporations are ultimately one of our own creations and we should be able to destroy them just as easily was they were created. This is will be far from effortless, but the film suggests that there is hope, as government does still have the power to take away a corporation’s rights at any time.

** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film compelled me to seek our more information on the history of corporations. Corporations were clearly not the same at the time of the Founding Fathers as they are today, but where exactly did they come from? Some sources say that the concept of corporations can be traced all the way back its roots in the Roman Empire, but the first clearly documented corporations were present just following the medieval times in Europe. According to Drutman in his article “The History of the Corporation” ([]), one of the first corporations was the East India Trading company. At this time, investors were liable for any harm or loss caused by the company. Also, kings and queens kept a close watch on these corporations and didn’t hesitate to revoke charters if they weren’t happy with the way things were being run. These ideas of the corporation were brought to America as many of the original colonies were corporations themselves. It wasn’t long until problems were seen with these as the British government tried to exercise control over colonies. There were notable anti-corporate protests, like the Boston Tea Party. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. A list of specific limiting conditions on corporations that are still on record, although not followed anymore, can be found at <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">[]. Many of these conflict the actions of corporations today and it is important to see how far corporations have deviated from their original purpose.