Richard Grossman, Ward Morehouse and others have been
advocating the revocation of corporate charters [the documents
that create corporations and allow them to conduct business]. I’m
w ondering how realistic this is. T his w ould have to happen in state
legislatures, w hich are almost entirely under the control of big
business.
I certainly think people should begin to question the legitimacy of
corporate institutions. In their current form, they’re a rather
recent phenomenon; their rights w ere created, mostly by the
judicial system, in the late 1800s and w ere dramatically expanded
early in this century.
In my view, corporations are illegitimate institutions of
tyrannical pow er, w ith intellectual roots not unlike those of fascism
and Bolshevism. (T here w as a time w hen that kind of analysis w asn’t
uncommon—for example, in the w ork of political economist Robert
Brady over fifty years ago. It has very deep roots in w orking-class
movements, Enlightenment thought and classical liberalism.)
T here are, as you point out, legal mechanisms for dissolving
corporations, since they all have to have state charters. But let’s
not delude ourselves—these are massive changes. Just suggesting
charter revocation as a tactic doesn’t make any sense—it can only
be considered after legislatures reflect the public interest instead of
business interests, and that w ill require very substantial education
and organization, and construction of alternative institutions to run
the economy more democratically.
But w e can—and should—certainly begin pointing out that
corporations are fundamentally illegitimate, and that they don’t have
to exist at all in their modern form. Just as other oppressive
institutions—slavery, say, or royalty—have been changed or
eliminated, so corporate pow er can be changed or eliminated. W hat
are the limits? T here aren’t any. Everything is ultimately under
public control.