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 large gap between fictional images and reality was less glaring, because most people had access to only one or two sources of information, often under elite control. 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 or even suicidal. The spread of ubiquitous communication technologies, such as the internet, and high levels of social atomization has irreversibly changed this 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 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 largely 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 most widely promoted myth in popular culture and media concerns the popular image of various institutions. For example- 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 national intelligence agencies are full of highly competent, motivated and enthusiastic people possessing tons of 'super-secret' technologies with an omnipotent control over events when events in real life have repeatedly shown them to be the product of wishful thinking.
Let us now explore the gap between the media-driven image of large corporations and compare that to observable reality.
The story-lines of many popular films from the last 3-4 decades such as Blade Runner, Alien and their 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 or similar institutions. In those movies, large corporations are depicted as being greedy, amoral, omnipotent or led by competent people and working off long-term plans or strategies. But how much of this 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 for corporations being 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 after 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. But is this really the case? Are they capable of even remotely approaching omnipotence? Are large corporations capable of stable governance on the size- and time- scale associated with established 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?
Large corporations talk a lot about meritocracy, but does a preponderance of evidence suggest that to be the case? Do you see evidence of corporations promoting competent or intelligent people? Why is promotion inside large corporations so dependent on your social network and milieu than any demonstrated ability? Why are 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 how does paying these parasites many tens to hundreds of millions or their alleged expertise in making corporations run better always achieve the exact opposite?
Talking about innovation and incentives to innovate.. Why are large corporations so bad at innovating even though they spend so much money, 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. Have you ever noticed that 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 supposedly 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 this dissonance increased over time? In my opinion, the mass media image of large corporations is based in a dumb myth that those in power desperately want others to believe. The media image of corporations is therefore best understood as propaganda and disinformation. It is an attempt to make the masses keep believing 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 do not expect the Hollywood image of corporations to reflect this rapidly growing awareness. It is likely that they will double down and amp up the propaganda- because they have no other option.
What do you think? Comments?