Ask Auntie Pinko
May 1, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

Most of the bloggers on DU rail long and hard against large corporations. Trouble is, this computer I'm writing to you on is built by a large corporation, the subway I took to work today, the telephones I use, the shoes I wear... I mean, Auntie Pinko... when was the last time you bought a pair of shoes at the corner cobbler shop... handmade by a caring local craftsman?! Then there's the matter of employment. Tens of millions of middle-class Americans work for large companies and millions more own stock in them. It seems rather hypocritical for DUers to regularly assault big companies, when at the same time we're struggling to build a popular base of political support for our values.

I just look at my own life - my TV, my stereo, my coffeemaker, my fridge... nothing I regularly use is from a small company... even the books I read! Then I read on DU that people are furious that big companies, who have put out oil fires for generations, are being criticized for being selected to put-out oil fires. Shouldn't competence and expertise carry the day? I mean, there are no corner-store Mom and Pops that know how to put out oil fires. There are no Mom and Pop operations that run airlines or railroads or bus lines, either... some things simply MUST be done on large-scale platforms. That's just common sense, Auntie Pinko! And as a person with strong democratic values, it makes zero sense to bash industries who employ so many and serve even more. I myself work for a small law firm, but even the pen and paper I use every day is made by a big company. Oh dear, I just realized the office tower we work in was also built by (gulp!) a big company. I say, let's make peace with reality, Auntie Pinko. Do you agree?

Tom,
Arlington, VA

Dear Tom,

If I may take the liberty of extracting what appears to be the core of your communication, your contention and question would appear to be thus:

1. Large corporations do many things that small corporations can't;
2. Most American consumers rely on the products of large corporations to maintain their basic lifestyles; and
3. Large corporations employ many people; therefore

People (presumably Americans) who post on the Democratic Underground web site should refrain from criticizing large corporations.

Auntie Pinko thinks she must have missed something, here, Tom. All of your three contentions are factually correct, but they don't necessarily justify the corollary. Because something is necessary, or even produces some type of benefit, does not mean that it should be removed from critical examination, or from criticism itself.

As you correctly note, Tom, we all do business, every day, in a world that exists based on the products of large corporations. Even the most dedicated organic, earth-friendly, bike riding, co-op shopping consumer cannot avoid reliance upon an economic structure that is anchored in the ability of large corporations to create economies of scale and efficiencies of distribution.

But it is in no way hypocritical to note the deficiencies of this system, and to strive for its improvement. Large corporations, while they deliver enormous economic benefit to Americans, also exact enormous prices, which are often hidden from or ignored by many of us. Bhopal comes to mind. Enron comes to mind. Mr. Dunlap, not-so-affectionately known as "Chainsaw Al," comes to mind.

What many Democratic Underground readers and contributors object to, Tom, is not the mere fact of large corporations' existence, but the manner in which our government allows them to operate: focused entirely on making profits, while ignoring the larger issues of public well-being.

Defenders of unregulated capitalism like to point out that the quest for profits, in and of itself, is not evil, and that it offers many beneficial side effects, such as the employment of large numbers of people, and the availability of cheap consumer goods. And Auntie agrees that, while not precisely morally admirable in a karmic sense, there is nothing inherently wicked in turning a profit. (We could go off on a tangent, here, and debate the nature and definition of "profit," but let's stick to the point.)

But Tom, the nearly five million American firms with fewer than 500 people on the payroll still employ far more people than the 17,000 or so firms with 500 or more employees. Small businesses, employment dollar for employment dollar, are a far more potent economic engine than large ones. And, because so many smaller businesses tend to operate in the communities where their owners live, they often provide far more local benefit.

We all rely on cheap consumer goods, and I suspect that even many ardent advocates of regulating the depredations of mega-capitalism would object to change that abruptly removed their ability to access so many goods and services. But appropriate regulation of large corporations, if carried out thoughtfully and firmly, will not necessarily return America's consumers to the dark ages or produce economic chaos. And checking the spiral of consumption and waste production would produce some wonderful benefits to the environment in which our grandchildren will need to live.

Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Tom!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.