More, more, more.

Power, politics and social change. Can any of these exist independently? In my experience, it seems as though they are all intermingled with each other. Social change cannot be established without the power of an organization or individual and at the same time, politics have to be in its favor the majority of the time to implement policies that would sustain this social change. Large organizations have the power to choose their suppliers and therefore the ability to implement many social changes in the work force but is their inaction a result of the power that they have?

In an article, economist Robert Kuttner claims that “… corporations just naturally grab all the power they can” until they reach a point where they are no longer able to do so without repercussions (Finnegan, 47). This statement reinforces the idea of organizations are unwilling to use their power in order to help enact social changes that they are able to due to their reluctance to act in ways that will undermine the power that they’ve “grabbed”. The concentration of power within larger corporations is problematic in the ways that prevents further growth for smaller companies. “In many countries, the benefits of economic growth are so unequally distributed that they intensify social and political tensions” rather than promote a more collaborative economy that would be more beneficial to all members of its society (Finnegan, 42).

Is the dominance that corporations seem to have over the economy “a more elaborate social creation, the work of many hands, mixing reality and symbol” (Walzer, 215)? Corporations are profitable because as society, we think and we value the brand that they are selling which allows corporations then to become greedier. The greed not only by corporations, but by individuals as well, only further demonstrate Walzer’s statement about how “groups of men and women will seek to monopolize and then to use the state in order to consolidate heir control of other social goods”. It seems to me that the unwillingness of society (corporations, government, individuals) to give up power unless its in exchange for something else either equally power or more powerful is a flaw in the capitalistic society that we are currently living in.


2 thoughts on “More, more, more.

  1. I think your last sentence in this post is a powerful one, and I agree with what you stated above. All too often we see and hear of corporations acting on their power in negative ways, creating an even bigger and unequal gap between corporations and everyone else. I resonated with the sentence stating, “The concentration of power within larger corporations is problematic in the ways that prevents further growth for smaller companies.” The impact of powerful and large corporations does nothing to help or assist smaller companies, thus, preventing further growth and expansion for such companies. I don’t necessarily see corporations, government, individuals etc. giving up their power anytime soon, so I like your sentiment about exchanging powers (as long as they are equally powerful). Great post Mona!


  2. Well, for Walzer, plurality is our salvation. Because we have different roles in different spheres, individuals CAN rise above their role in anyone sphere and imagine ways to minimize domination.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s