In your opinion, is the film ‘The Corporation’ a demonization of corporations produced by left-wing radicals? Or is it a fair critique of their overbearing power and influence?
The film “The Corporation” is not a demonization of corporations but a fair critique of the overbearing power and influence of corporations. This is in consideration to the facts presented by Bakan in line with what is happening today. It is a fact without reasonable doubt that corporation powers and influence has pocketed government officials through bribe and other forms of corruption to an extent that they can just carry out activities recklessness without fear of legal consequences. Many are the cases where corporations have been accused of illegal actions which harm the environment like pollution and the cases forwarded to the government. But what has been the outcome of the cases? After a short period of time in pretense that the case is being pursued the operations of many corporations resume as normal and without any change. Even, emitting more pollution than before in attempt to compensate for the lost profits.
In fact many are the times when demonstrations have been witnessed in corporations from the workers demanding for their rights. From delayed payments to harsh working conditions, but what has been the reaction from the government? Absolutely no reaction apart from giving false hopes to the victims, telling them that necessary action will be taken to ensure that they are fully protected in their lines of duty under those corporations. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Consider a case in Australia where a case of food poisoning took place leading to a number of deaths. What legal actions were taken against the corporation? None! In fact the corporation was reluctant to an extent of not willing to take the responsibility of burial expenses of the victims. Considering that this mess had been caused by the corporate through its ignorance towards ensuring that food substances are tested for safety before being released to consumers, the government ought to have taken severe legal actions against the corporate. No legal actions were taken against the corporate however, depicting how the corporation sector has had influential power towards the government.
Q2. Write a paragraph that defends multinational corporations. Your job here is to outline the ways in which they benefit society. Please include ideas, arguments and points from the work of Martin Wolf and Matthew Sparke.
However much multinational corporations may be criticized for what has been pointed out as exploitation to poor countries, the fact will always remain that these corporations play a very critical role in the society where they are established. From provision of jobs to the locals of such a society to improving the infrastructure in general, they have a lot of benefits to such societies. I mean, much as the jobs usually offered by these factories may look awkward like cleaning and other casual jobs to locals, the fact remains that they are better than being idle since definitely they pay. Martin and his colleague notes that, however much these jobs may seem imaginably bad, alternatives like total dependency in the case of housewives, prostitution, begging and some forms of agricultural labour would be the worst cases.
Multinational corporations have also been accused of exploitation based on the fact that workers from those developing countries are not in a position to afford the same goods they produce since they are sold at very high costs, an argument which according to Martin is irrational since the workers are after earning from their labour and not buying what they make in those corporates. Multinational corporations therefore play very vital roles in benefiting the whole society especially in reducing levels of unemployment and should encouraged.
Q3. To what extent do you agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s ideas about an aggressive redistribution of wealth from the winners to the losers of globalization in British society? Give reasons for your
answer.
I fully don’t support the idea of Jeremy Corbyn’s, simply because the idea will bring more harm to the country’s economy than expected. Taking this scenario in real life situation for instance, who will sacrifice to work yet he or she knows that even without working will have a share of what others are working for? Basically this idea will make people not to work and choose just to idle around waiting to claim a share of benefits. Then also, it should be realized that however much the rich people may seem to own, it is equivalent to their needs. The case is the same on the other hand; the poor also have what is equivalent to their needs. Individual’s needs are all different.
The government should therefore charge reasonable taxes as per individual’s income level instead. This to some extend will help in redistribution of wealth. How? The tax collected will help in provision of public facilities and infrastructure. Since following the rule of tax as per income level will lead to collection of high taxes, the taxes can be used in creation of jobs to benefit the poor people. Enforcing fixed tax rate to all citizens regardless of level of income has been one of major factors causing diversity in wealth distribution. Adopting the rule of tax rate as per income level will therefore reduce the gap. The idea of Jeremy Corbyn should not be upheld since it will bring more harm to the economy. First, it will discourage people from working hard to idling around and secondly, it will be unfair to people who work hard to improve their life styles.