The documentary The Corporation, directed by Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar and produced in 2004,

although bias, opens many doors for discussion in regard to capitalism and the role of corporations in our

lives. I found the documentary to be presented professionally, and filled with legitimate facts more so than

extreme opinion. The documentary truly outlines the "all-pervasive" role the corporation has taken as the

"world's dominant institution".

The film opens with a critique on the media's most widely-used metaphor to describe certain corporations

as "a few bad apples". Among many newscasters quoted, George Bush is also shown belittling unjust

corporations to a few bad apples. The documentary takes this and runs, so to speak, through

exemplifying the short-sighted and belittling nature of this metaphor in describing the majority of the

corporate world and its monopolizing, exploitive capabilities and tendencies. The film deems Dr.

Frankenstein's creation to be analogous with the rise of corporations. The documentary illustrates

corporations to have started as something for the "public good". The film discusses original chartered

corporations with clear stipulations to avoid the multitude of injustices apparent today. This background

information creates the outline for how far corporations have strayed from their role as a social

betterment.

The film outlines the turning point to have occurred during the signing of the fourteenth amendment, this

amendment was pushed between 1890 and 1910 in the name of free slaves. The amendment allots equal

rights for individuals in terms of property, capital and the pursuit of happiness. The film highlights the fact

that corporations skewed the amendment to include all corporations as individuals, thus allotting the rights

of a person to a corporation. This in turn takes the blame off of many individuals leading a corporation and

instead views them as one entity. The documentary quotes a white, male CEO of a company stating: "No

soul to save, no body to incarcerate" this illustrates the danger in deeming corporations as persons.

The film utilizes the film maker Michael Moore, he is first pictured stating that corporations have "one

incentive: make as much money as possible". Moore makes the interesting distinction that there is no

marker for "enough", how much money is "enough" for a billionaire corporation?
The film places most emphasis on the "harms" of corporations, dividing segments into slides illustrating

particular harms. The first segment depicts corporate harms to workers in the form of layoffs, union busts,

factory fires, sweat shops etc. The film continues to outline harms to the environment in the form of

dangerous production methods, toxic waste, pollution, synthetic chemicals, etc. The rise of synthetic

chemicals is highlighted indicating this allows corporations to make everything at a lower cost, which as

stated by the film is the monetary bottom line for all corporations. The documentary holds the corporate

industry solely responsible for the United States' cancer epidemic.

The film also focuses on harms to animals: habitat deconstruction, factory farming, and animal

experimentation which in my mind was the most influential part of the documentary: the discussion on the

company Monsanto and animal hormones. The documentary discusses data showing the negative

ramifications of the wide use of Monsanto products. The product Polisic is shown advertised for a needed

increase in farming income, followed by proof of infection spreading to the milk we consume at home.

Other hormones were discussed that in terms of humans affect the curability of infections in that a

resistance to antibiotics is built. The example of staph infection was given specifically and our difficulty to

maintain a cure due to resistance to antibodies. Back to Monsanto, the documentary stated that persons

in the U.S. were able to sue the company $80million as compensation for health damages such as cancer

caused by the company's Agent Orange used in Vietnam. The film listed a multitude of companies sued

for over $1million in fines, however never mentioned in the press.

Most shocking in the discussion of Monsanto, is the film's coverage of a court case in which two Fox

news reporters stood up for their right to serve as a valid news source. Two workers are depicted to have

been assigned by Fox to change and hide their findings on the Monsanto companies' injustices and their

inability to speak the truth. Rather than a happy ending, after hours of efforts, many letters, etc. the ex-

workers received $425,000 as a settlement however only later to be withdrawn with shocking reasoning.

The case closed with the conclusion that it is not technically illegal to produce false news. The workers

lose and the corporation wins, thus pus still remains in our milk and most people, save those fortunate to

hear the uncensored truth, will continue to drink it with smiles.

The documentary film titled The Corporation attempts to present to the viewer different facets of this

institution. The points of view presented in the mainstream media are quite different from the actual

realities associated with business corporations. The documentary is based on a book written by Joel

Bakan titled The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, and is made by the team

comprising of Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. As the title of the book suggests, business corporations

are all too often guilty of pursuing profits over the interests of people and the environment. This thesis is

suitably demonstrated in the documentary through a compilation of interviews, film clips and case studies

from the past. Divided in three one-hour episodes, the documentary succeeds in showing to the viewer

the various negative aspects of a business corporation, which often gets little attention in the mainstream

media and popular discourse.

One of the major themes of the documentary film is the damage done to the environment by large

business corporations. With commercial profitability being their primary motive, many large corporations

neglect to address the negative impact on the environment. For example, many paper mills in the U.S.A

dump toxic effluents from their processing plants into the nearby stream or river, causing irreparable

damage to the local ecosystem and also increasing risk to human beings. The other criticism leveled

against corporations is their tendency to exploit cheap labor in Third World regions. A classic example of

this is the substandard wages paid to workers of Nike in Indonesia, who get less than one percent of the

marked price of the goods they manufacture.

Another well-publicized case is that of Monsanto Corporation, which introduced into the market a bovine

hormone injection which had proven unsafe for both animals and humans during the testing stage.

Cognizant of this risk factor, Health Canada had banned the injection in Canada – a move that was

repeated in many European countries as well. Only in the United States was the injection allowed to
enter the markets, which eventually caused much suffering for the animals and put the safety and

wellbeing of consumers at risk. In the case of Monsanto, the Fox News network refused to broadcast an

investigative story about the company due to fears of loss in advertisement revenue. The essence of this

situation is concisely written by Grant Ledgerwood in his book Environment Ethics and the Corporation as

follows:

“The 1,000 largest corporations in the world drive international investment. Thereby, these businesses

have a more direct impact on planetary environment than do governments. Reflecting a growing

awareness of this impact, leaders of international business must accept responsibility for the environment.

Moreover, business has an impact on cities and human habitats which are ever more urban; therefore,

exploring the urban dimension of how business manages the environment is also important.”

(Ledgerwood, 2000, p.2)

The other important theme covered in the documentary is the psychological assessment of a

corporation’s traits, since they are given legal rights and privileges on par with that of citizens. The

conclusion drawn by this psychological profiling is quite astounding, for it was ascertained that the

corporation is psychopathic in nature. This psychopathic nature is by no means inevitable, but was rather

devised by corporate lawyers wanting to please their clients and a judiciary that lacked foresight and

restraint. Noam Chomsky, a noted public intellectual who was interviewed in the film, draws attention to

this mistake made by the Supreme Court when in the late nineteenth century it granted corporations all

the rights that a flesh-and-blood human being was entitled to. This crucial event would have a profound

impact on twentieth century history as the corporation would displace the nation-state as the most

powerful institution in world politics.

Sufficient evidence is provided in the documentary from published reports, firsthand accounts of

employees, interviews of industry leaders, public intellectuals and social activists. Hence it can be stated

that the documentary has been effective in conveying its message in an objective manner without

compromising on facts and evidence. Its central arguments and the conclusions arrived thereupon are

both logically sound and persuasive. What makes the film even more convincing is the fact that people
from fields as diverse as the academia and the industry are interviewed, which otherwise would have

constituted bias on part of the film makers.

Review

Joseph G. Ramsey

the Corporation. Directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot.

The Edges of "Externality"

1. Following Fahrenheit 9/11 and Super-Size Me!, the two docudrama hits of last season, comes The

Corporation, bearing accolades from not only the Sundance Film Festival, but Premiere magazine,

the LA, and New York Times. Directed by Mark Achbar (previous co-director of Manufacturing Consent:

Noam Chomsky and the Media) and Jennifer Abbot, and based on the book by Joel Bakan -- The

Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power and Profit -- this radical Canadian documentary features

Left-notables such as Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Naomi Klein, as well as thirty-

odd lesser-known corporate experts: "CEOs, whistle blowers, brokers, gurus, spies, players, pawns, and

pundits," as the film's promotional blurb proudly declares. As both a critical analysis and a dramatic

indictment of the "dominant institution of our era," The Corporation probes far deeper than Michael

Moore's and Morgan Spurlock's work. The film merits serious attention and deserves a truly super-sized

audience (one that, unfortunately, it seems unlikely to get in the US).

2. Beginning with a fast-paced overview of the recent explosion of corporate crime scandals, the movie

proceeds to satirize the dominant media's diagnosis of this scandal "crisis" as the product of a few -- OK,

a few dozen -- "bad apples" stinking up otherwise healthy Corporate America. The film breaks down this
"bad apple" metaphor, demonstrating again and again how the "rotting" of corporate "apples" is little but

the open flowering of the corruption present in these institutions' very corporate seeds.

3. In its early sequences, The Corporation examines how corporations acquired the status of legal

"persons" following the US Civil War, ironically via the Constitutional amendments aimed at guaranteeing

equal citizenship to newly freed African Americans. Wittily, the film then charts the corporate "person's"

behavior using an authentic psychiatric checklist from World Health Organization: "Callous unconcern for

the feelings of other?"-Check. "Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships?" -- Check. "Reckless regard

for the safety of others?" -- Check. "Deceitfulness; repeated lying and conniving of others for profit?"

-- Check. "Incapacity to experience guilt?" -- Check. "Failure to conform to social norms with respect to

lawful behavior?" -- Check. Check. Check. Check. As the evidence mounts, the damning diagnosis

emerges: the corporation, examined as a "person," is a "psychopath."

4. "Unaccountable, private tyrannies" is how Noam Chomsky describes them -- rather less playfully --

likening the institution to slavery, which deformed slave-owners -- whatever their benevolent intentions or

particular personalities -- to behave brutally and inhumanely. From its early moments The

Corporation thus moves beyond superficial demonization-or fetishization -- of "bad" corporations -- Big

Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Weapons, Big Fast Food -- towards a critical, historical and institutional analysis of

corporations' very structure and nature. In this sense the film goes further than either Fahrenheit

9/11 (anti-Bush, anti-Big Oil and anti-Big Weapons) or SuperSize Me! (anti-Big Fast Food).

5. But not only does the film analyze the origins, history, behavior patterns, and social and

environmental effects of corporations; it is also manages to be an entertaining movie, one that is

creatively organized and well-produced. Though it relies heavily on individual interviews, for instance, The

Corporation seldom drags, periodically picking up the pace with clever editing and help from a strong

beat-driven soundtrack.

6. Conceptually, The Corporation focuses its critique closely on the idea of "externalities," that is, the

external -- often undesirable -- effects of business transactions between two parties (often two

corporations) upon an un-consulted third party (often the surrounding community). Indeed, the film

presents a devastating barrage of such "unintended" corporate attacks on the environment, public health,
and public access to information, while frequently demonstrating how even those who are planning and

ordering these attacks are themselves "personally" opposed to them; i.e. their actions as slaves to the

corporate bottom line contradict their own beliefs as private citizens. Yet in keeping with its "external"

approach, The Corporation tends to focus more on the "unaccountability" of corporations and less on their

intrinsic "tyranny" as capitalist enterprises, more on the "external" damage done by these institutions than

on the internal exploitation and repression which they carry out within their factory walls and office

hallways, especially with respect to their labor forces.

7. In fact, while this film boasts a diversity of points-of-view, the perspective of one major group of

"corporate insiders" is notably absent: that of the workers whose labor makes these corporations run.

8. For the most part, the only corporate "insiders" the film interviews are CEOs and managers, with the

exception of two news-reporter "whistle-blowers" from Fox 13 News in Florida (whose story, I must note,

dramatically demonstrates the willingness of the corporate media producers to censor the "news" to fit its

corporate sponsors' interests). But no factory workers, no union organizers, no cubicled white-collar

employees appear, at least not for long.

9. To be fair, "harm to employees" is one of the "file categories" examined by the film-makers during

their mock psychiatric exam of the corporation as a "person." Yet there is little to no attention paid to the

self-activity of the workers within and against these corporations, or to the role that the state plays in

disabling this self-activity. In fact, the only example of labor activism with which we are confronted is that

of the American National Labor Council's external expose of sweatshop and child-labor in Kathy Lee

Gifford's Latin American garment factories. Though the exploitation of child-labor in third world countries

here stands exposed, the workers remain generally passive victims, apparently yet another "externality"

for the corporation. However, their status as "internalities" with the potential power to transform -- or even

to shut down or to take over -- the corporation from within is virtually ignored.

10. Related to "externality," the other central concept of the film's anti-corporate critique is privatization,

the corporate take-over of previously public resources. From the human genome, to the inside of

children's imaginations, to Iraqi oil, to the public water-supply, to the song "Happy Birthday," the directors

bring us a slew shocking and outrageous examples of corporations crossing the line -- whether "the line"
be ethical, communal, moral, religious, or legal -- to take control and to profit off of what instinct or

tradition tells us should be free for all. Clearly nothing is sacred, no line impermeable, nothing off-limits to

these out-of-control creatures.

11. In addition to these lines of analysis, impressively, Howard Zinn and Chomsky use their camera

time to foreground corporations' historical complicity in the rise of fascism. For instance, they point out

how in Europe during the 1930s, in the US during the Roosevelt reign, as well as throughout the 20th

century in Latin America, major corporations have routinely supported right-wing coups and dictatorships.

As Chomsky notes, it makes sense: fascists have after all been great defenders of corporate interests,

repressing labor unions, destroying left-wing political parties, and issuing large and profitable military

contracts. Mussolini as well as Adolf Hitler benefited greatly from corporate aide, the film shows, with IBM

in particular coming in for shame for supplying and maintaining the German punch-card machines that

kept track of people in the Nazi concentration and death camps, all the way through the early 1940s.

12. The extensive corporate complicity in the rise of fascism is a fact routinely excluded from US

history textbooks and mainstream political discourse (a fact which alone should demand that all high

school and college students in the US today see this movie). In fact even Edwin Black -- author of IBM

and the Holocaust and interviewed in the film -- tends to understate the broader trend in the course of

highlighting the exceptional evil of IBM. Like many writers, Black evades the underlying -- and often anti-

communist and anti-union -- reasons that corporations cooperated with and supported the Nazis early on.

Thus, Black's book does not so much as mention the labor unionists, socialists, and communists who

were among the first to be rounded up and killed by Hitler's SS. Thankfully, with the help of the graying

professors of US radicalism, however, The Corporation puts the ever-more-timely link between big

business and the black-shirts back on the table.

13. Lest we become hopeless in the face of seemingly endless corporate tyranny, The

Corporation closes with an examination of some of the local victories that mass movements in the third

world -- as well as consumer and community movements in the US -- have won against modern-day

corporate encroachments. The film pays special attention to the successful Bolivian mass movement
against water privatization, as well as to an anti-corporate town meeting in Arcata, CA, and the internal

corporate reform efforts of CEO Ray Anderson.

14. In the end though, what The Corporation left me with was the stark contrast between the

movement in Bolivia, which mobilized what amounted to a general strike to face down murderous police

state violence (and win!) and the limited, rather unfocused victories of the Arcatans, who manage to

succeed in banning fast-food chains from their city limits, not to mention the rather facile optimism and

self-righteousness of American corporate reformer Ray Anderson, who hopes to clean up his carpet-

corporation from within, while still maintaining its hefty profit margins. Premiere magazine no doubt has

not been alone in deeming Anderson the "bona fide hero" of the movie, as a CEO who has been born-

again as an environmentalist and "still has his job." But really, although The Corporation does let

Anderson give his own account of his ecological epiphany, showing him as he lectures his -- seemingly

apathetic -- fellow businessmen on the need to move towards ecological business balance, it is the

scenes from the streets of Bolivia -- where tens of thousands take to the streets, and where dozens are

shot down for simply asserting their human right to public water -- that contain the real heroes of this film.

"I see dark days ahead for my children," Bolivian activist Oscar Olivera" tells the camera, "but I have faith

in the people . . . El pueblo unido, jamas hara vencido." The people united, will never be

defeated. Speaking softly in Spanish to the camera, Olivera's comments are hopeful, yet not naïve or self-

serving. Indeed, his words remind me of Italian Marxist and communist organizer Antonio Gramsci, who,

from within his fascist prison-cell in the 1930s, called for "pessimism of the intellect," but "optimism of the

will."

15. Still, while this remarkable film depicts plenty of local resistance -- from India to Canada, New York

to California -- one would have liked to see The Corporation (and one would still like to see its viewers)

move beyond its extensive discussion of the way that corporations routinely violate the law -- moral as

well as juridical -- to a consideration of political strategy. Likewise, I believe that we need to move beyond

Chomsky's assertion that corporations are simply "legal institutions," and hence theoretically capable of

being restrained or even abolished by that same law, to a political discussion of the extent to which

corporations have effectively taken over the law and the lawmakers as well. Major corporations after all,
practically speaking, via campaign contributions, incessant lobbying efforts, and corporate control of

media discourse itself, have to a remarkable degree co-opted the leadership of both major US parties, the

White House, most of the Congress, and most regulatory agencies.

16. On this note, perhaps the most conspicuous absence in The Corporation's long line of experts is

corporate-raider Ralph Nader, whose biographical trajectory from long-time regulatory and reform

advocate to anti-corporate political campaigner could have added a recognizably and explicitly political

edge to this otherwise radical work. Without necessarily implying an endorsement of Nader's campaign,

his presence could have introduced the idea that perhaps not only local direct action and agitation, but

also independent, coordinated, national political action is necessary to take down these monstrous

multinationals. That instead of Nader-Camejo, the The Corporation's credited and its website gesture

to Moveon.orgas their sole "democracy in action" link suggests a limited left-political vision indeed.

17. But I don't want to understate the radical edges of this movie. More so than Fahrenheit 9/11, The

Corporation raises fundamental problems that cannot be answered by supporting corporate-funded

candidates or parties (no matter what the film directors or screen credits may tell you), but only by

building forms of independent, anti-corporate, political action on a growing, increasingly mass scale. As

the treatment of dissenters inside as well as outside the DNC last summer (not to mention the RNC)

dramatized, such independent action is something that the Democratic establishment (not to mention the

Republicans) seek to control and to co-opt, not create.

18. To me, The Corporation suggests the political impotence of establishment solutions to the current

crisis or corporate domination. And while the film doesn't come to any clear conclusions about what is to

be done, it does clearly show us how dire is the international need for a political praxis that goes beyond

beating the Bush to unearthing, root and branch, the overgrown corporate forest that has produced him

(as well as his rather wooden-looking soon-to-be-doomed opponent, John Kerry).

Review

The following review is presented by Congress:Member:Sterling D. Allan and Mary-Sue Haliburton of PES

Network, Inc., with expansion welcome by other users of this site. (Aug. 19, 2006)
This exceptionally well-done documentary film looks at the rise of the corporate body as having the legal

status of a "person" -- albeit with no conscience -- and its collective psychopathic raping of the planets'

people and resources due to a greed-based bottom-line motivation. The film also touches on more recent

trends within the corporate world to awaken morally and infuse ethics into the equation, to halt and then

reverse the past damages that have been inflicted.

The film features interviews with some of the key movers and shakers in the corporate world, as well as in

the environmental and corporate polemic world, such as social critics Noam Chomsky and Michael

Moore.

The Corporation as a

The film touches on how this status of "person" for a corporation was achieved underhandedly, a point

that is explained in more depth by Thom Hartmann in his landmark, well-researched historical tour de

force Unequal Protection. The author Hartmann explains how railway companies made use of a

Constitution Amendment intended to protect the human rights of former slaves to confer personhood on

their business interests -- without this ever having been passed by a judge. The actual legal decision went

against the company, but a compliant court clerk wrote a favourable preface which has since that time

been cited as a legal authority -- no one apparently having bothered to read the judge's actual words

rejecting the claim!

As an alleged person a Corporation is a non-biological entity, without the need to breathe air, drink water

or eat food, notably without the obligation to die and -- without a conscience. According to psychological

analysis criteria, the corporation's legal "person" is diagnosed as being a There was an error working with

the wiki: Code[1]. The film goes through the characteristics of this personality disorder, showing point for

point (see list, below) how they correspond to the typical behavior of businesses.

Also documented in the film is how the fundamental aim of serving the bottom line and the shareholders'

financial growth essentially requires abuse of the environment and all manner of shortcuts and

exploitation. Being greed-driven, and raping the planet for profit is simply what we should expect from this

kind of underlying conceptual framework, based as it was on dishonest legal shenanigans in the first
place. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV news, and corporate propaganda is used to illustrate the

corporation's take-over of our lives, rising above governments in their power.

Some interesting ramifications and consequences of rogue corporate personhood are noted by author

Jane Smiley.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/ceo-president_b_27658.htmlRef.)

EXCERPT: "Given what these big corporations routinely do, we have to ask, are they filled and peopled

from top to bottom by ruthless monsters who care nothing about others, and also nothing about the world

that we live in? Are these CEOs and CFOs and COOs and managers and researchers and stockholders

so beyond human that, let's say, the deaths in Iraq and the destitution of the farmers and the tumors and

allergies and obesities of children, and the melting of the Greenland ice cap and the shifting of the Gulf

Stream are, to them, just the cost of doing business? Or are they just beyond stupid and blind, so that

they, alone among humans, have no understanding of the interconnectedness of all natural systems?"

Sample Case of Corporate Manipulation of News

One of the most compelling parts of the film details manipulation of the media though financial coercion.

Reporter Jane Akre is interviewed explaining how Fox Network initially encouraged her and her partner

Steve Wilson to be hard-hitting and dig up the truth. However, the first story the two of them prepared was

that Monsanto's Bovine Somatotropin (Bovine Growth Hormone, or BGH) was shown to have negative

health implications including heightened risk of cancer. The network even promoted their news story on

the air the clips are included of this promo. However, before it was to air, Monsanto's lawyers went into

action. Fox then reversed itself and tried to get its reporters to change the facts of their story.

Akre and Wilson refused. At one point a company manager is quoted as telling the reporters that Fox paid

$30 billion for these TV stations and that gave the company the right to decide what is true. An unheard-of

eighty-three rewrites ensued. Finally the intrepid couple were fired. They sued for wrongful dismissal,

using their status as as whistleblowers defending the public interest as the right to know the truth.
True to the psychopathic corporate profile, Fox then took the complainants to court, finding a judge in

Florida who would use a legal technicality to remove their wistleblower status. The company argued and

won based on their finding that there wasn't actually any law that required the news to be the truth. As

explained in detail by a sympathetic group, Organic Consumers (.org), this is the infamous "right to lie"

case on which Fox proudly stands claiming vindication of its position. At the time this film was made, that

was where it ended. Since then, Fox has sued Akre and Wilson.

As the story is presented in the film, Akre and Wilson are the heroes. There's always another side, of

course, as explained at CreativeLoafing.com. This one alleges that defiant duo were manipulating events

to raise their own profile, and were making money from somewhere while presenting themselves as in

need of financial help. (This could be a smear charges of financial misdealings are routinely levelled

against anyone who criticizes major coporations even if the evidence has to be faked. One would have to

dig further to find out what is really happening.) This site includes the following interesting paragraph:

: "That inclusion is what Wilson and Akre decry as 'distortion' or depict on their website as a 'lie.'

Monsanto may well have been deceptive. This is murky science, however. And companies lie to the

media all the time. The reporter's job is to provide as much information as possible and let the viewer or

reader decide. If the reporter feels a source isn't being candid, the solution isn't to snip the material, but to

build a case with facts that expose the deception."

Companies lie to the media all the time?

Exactly -- and as the producers of The Corporation are outlining at length.

It's up to viewers of this film, The Corporation, to assess what they are seeing, while not overlooking the

fact that Canada and Britain had not approved BGH for sale. An attitude of heathy skepticism should

always be in the back of our minds. Also, when viewing all televised "news" (also known as

"infotainment") concerning medical and other "advances of science", we should keep in our awareness

the fact that PR firms routinely prepare "news stories" about new drugs to feed to reporters, which then

deliver them to the front pages of newspapers and prime time TV news. When they want to create

advance demand for the new drug or chemical, pharmaceutical companies hire PR agents to stir up
interest among the public, making use of uncritical news stories as a kind of free publicity. The TV or

newspaper report never analyze the scientific study in depth, much less putting it into any kind of context

or perspective related to other products or procedures, especially not alternative ones. Whole trade

shows are set up to facilitate these PR firms getting business from the big pharmaceutical companies. (As

reported on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's IDEAS series, 2005.)

So it's not just caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) but always also caveat lector (reader) and caveat

spectator (viewer). Let's all keep our thinking caps on, and not simply buy all that we hear or see which is

presented as news.

The film documents a number of examples of severe sleaze on the part of corporations, illustrating the

psychopathic nature of "person" designation and legal protection, but with no conscience, with money

being the driving factor, not ethics.

During World War II, Adolf Hitler would not have been able to do what he did in exterminating millions of

Jews if it were not for the database assistance of the punch card technology supplied to his regime by

IBM. The devices required monthly servicing by IBM technical persons, and several machines were

housed in some of the most notorious concentration camps. The film documents that IBM was

knowledgeable about how the machines were being put to use, and yet continued to supply the support

needed to keep the technology in place.

A book by Edwin Black, whose parents were victims of the holocaust, soundly exposes this episode,

drawing from 100,000 source documents. See IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between

Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation.

Hopeful Signs

Documentation presented in The Corporation underscores corporate disregard for human health, human

well-being, and the environment in general. True confessions, case studies, and strategies for change are

all included. This provides a powerful glimpse of what is destructive to environment and health, and by

way of balance also explores a recent trend to wake up and do something about this, both through

pressure from without, as well as through enlightened leadership from within the corporate world.
Some CEOs are beginning to gain moral fiber, to turn around, and then reverse the damage their

corporations have inflicted on the biosphere. One of these, a carpet manufacturer, revised his business

plan to mean not selling new carpets but client service in maintaining carpets, which are now modular.

Only damaged parts are replaced, and the materials are recycled. This man is shown speaking to a

receptive business audience about the merits of reducing environmental impact through recycling

materials.

Provokative, witty, informative, and even entertaining, this film deserves repeat viewing and discussion. It

has been serialized and rebroadcast several times on Canadian neworks such as Vision TV (spirituality

channel) and TV Ontario (educational channel).