Corporate Ethics.. as taught by Marx.
I had an interesting comment on my "Re-Think California" post the other day.
It seems that an employee of Corporate Ethics International supports my "Re-Think California" Facebook campaign.
Her comment:
this is heather lehman, a frequent commenter on the rethinkAlberta Facebook page and a librarian who works for corporate ethics international. i am a fan of CEI BECAUSE of their lack of hypocrisy. the claim that they are hypocrites is silly and comes from people who have no idea of either campaigning or the issue at hand.Here's the thing, though, Heather.
CEI actively works against polluters in the energy sector everywhere. I have asked Dr. Marx about the rethinkCalifornia campaign response to rethinkAlberta - his response was "I very much hope that people campaign against any state, nation, province that engages in greenwashing of the dirty energy corporations and their facilities. CEI would certainly look into endorsing ANY campaign that aimed its sites at the energy sector." So, while I don't have the ins and outs of the whole rethinkAlberta campaign, I think it would be worth your time to drum up support for a rethinkCallifornia Campaign!
Remember, CEI is not California and the whole world is everybody's backyard when it comes to energy infrastructure.
Re-Think Alberta is based out of California. A state which is consuming more gasoline than China.
And the point of your little campaign against Alberta, really, is to penalize each and every Albertan for the exagerrated acts of a few oil companies.
And yet - oddly enough - one of the most egregious consumers of fossil fuel in the world is California. So, one wonders why they didn't start cleaning their own house first?
Why didn't they ask people to stop coming to California to put more pressure on the State to stop abusing resources and to clean up the cesspools of pollution in their own backyard. Why aren't they picketing in front of Disneyland and on Fisherman's Wharf telling people to go home?
Why indeed.
Perhaps it's easier to ask other people to do without than to tighten your own belt.
And that's offensive.
And that's Corporate Ethics International.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the CEO of Corporate Ethics International is named "Marx"?
And is it not more than a little more creepy that their mission statement is:
Our mission is to bring corporations back in service to and under the control of the citizenry.
Not that far off, I suppose from:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
(Karl Marx, 1875 "Critique of the Gotha Program")
If it looks like Marx, and quacks like Marx..
1 comments:
Actually, targeting the pusher and the user at the same time is a good plan. Why the consumer first and not the producer? Your argument makes Alberta out to be blameless - which is nonsense and you know it.
Your take on this situation and the constant drumming of "hypocrite" is fatuous. As is your attempt at parallel to K. Marx.
If you think that the tagline for CEI is creepy, then one must assume through your logic that you endorse corporatocracy over democracy. So much for liberty!
Your argument ultimately fails, however, because of a few facts:
CEI is not the USA nor California. Simply because it has an office in California does not make it synonymous.
CEI already does work on "tightening belts" in California, the USA, and elsewhere through Business Ethics Network and that rethinkAlberta was intended to get people to turn attention to Alberta and Alberta government complicity in BigOil problems. And it worked smashingly - now there are even more voices calling for baseline science, enforcement of existing regulation, and strengthening of protections for people over corporate entities.
Tourist boycotts are very rarely about the tourism industry, and are usually not as successful as rethinkAlberta has been.
You are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the campaign was only taken on after years of trying to dialogue about this situation and being summarily ignored.
the TSC coalition is comprised of Canadian groups as well as US groups because this is not an issue for nationalistic rhetoric but global welfare.
So, thanks for the reply but a little more research and rigorous thinking might help your argument.
Post a Comment