From the article of 'Petrel'
No.632 / June 8, 1997
Please
send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.
How to fight against the rot of the big enterprise?
Such as the restriction by the stockholder is nonsense.
Do decisive pursuit by the worker's fight!
--------
A noisy discussion starts how to losing the cause and the rot as the rot of the big enterprise is exposed and to winning the enterprise's (That is, the Japanese capitalisim's) health. All these discussions have an essential characteristic of shelving the fundamental problems and the most important problems, and wandering about in several superficial phenomenon. If a certain discussion makes the lack of manager's ethics feeling a problem, another discussion emphasizes that the enterprise in Japan is managed under an irresponsible system, and that, in the basis, neither the restriction nor management by the stockholder work and the stockholder rally is making itself a ruin, that it is not the suitable system to have mutually of the stock with the big enterprise.
The bourgeois public opinion is in full bloom in this aspect in this way.
--------
<> Is the reason that there is not the restriction of stockholder?
Of course, even if we preach to the manager to posses the ethics feeling and the sense of responsibility, it is evident that these kind of things are useless. In this case, the "conscientious" bourgeois is powerless, falls, and loses power, and who gives the profit, acquires powers, and enlarges the capital is a win.
However, such as the liberals make to the problem is not a mere conscience but the system that makes unable to have the conscience, or the "system" that makes the manager who does not have the conscience arrogant. However, they never request this system, the basis to the system of the property of owning privately, to the system of the self-interest, and to the system of this capitalism that assumes the acquisition of the profit to be only the motive and the power of promotion.
For instance, they emphasize that it is not suitable the stockholder rally is making itself a ruin, that though the function to check the manager does not work, the stockholder rally should accomplish it because it is the stock company. Their solution is the restriction of management by the stockholder.
Though the enterprises in Japan are the stock company, they forgets that own power was consigned by the stockholder. It is the result that the stockholders' meeting ends "unanimously" (Moreover, it is produced to become so) and does not function at all. The "illegal" grant of profit to the fixer and to the crime organization is exactly the reverce side, and the like.
Therefore, the road to "solution" from such recognition is to make the stockholder rally work. To begin with, it is necessary that the stockholder rally displays the check function on the company, the achievement, and the manager.
That is, the liberal public opinion expresses the restriction of the functional capital by the capital possession. They say that the functional capital is provided by the possession capital after all and the principle of the private property have to be accomplished.
However, it is better not to make problem "the system" than to do in such shape. The liberal is understanding the problem quite superficially, so the solution plan is also quite nonsense and dwarfish.
First, when the manager and the main stockholder are the same, it might be meaningless one even if to say the restriction of the stockholder to the company. Even if it is not in no restriction of the stockholder to the company in case of this, it only returns to the large capital profit after all if both are the same. Moreover, we will not be able to eliminate the rot of the large capital, that is, the stock company.
In addition to such general circumstances, the influence power of the stockholder, that is, the individual stockholder in this case, to the enterprise at the present age, is insignificant and it is as if it is not. It is still the big enterprise and the large bank that possesses the stock of Japanese large capital, that is, the capital form of "the mutial possession of stock" is predominant in Japan.
It is clear to say about the stockholder's "right" or the restriction in case of this is meaningless. Because it does not mean more than the large capital restricts the large capital either.
However, the large stockholder of the enterprise in Japan is the big enterprise, and the big enterprise unite for mutual profits, compromise, and conspire mutually. The stockholder rally ends "Peacefully and Safely" as long as there is not great if the big enterprise who is a large stockholder keeps silent in the stockholder rally.
Of course, the enterprise is off its guard and exposes the scandal, it becomes target of the fixer and the crime organization and is sucked at once. However except for it, the stockholder rally is supported by the big enterprise stockholder, there is not a wonderful difficulty, and either can continue any cruel management for the time being.
The large capitals might rather choose the one to keep silence and to pretend not seeing mutual defect and problem, and in fact, they choose it instead of discloseing it.
The stockholder rally has accepted the policy of the company by an overwhelming majority under intertwineing and leaning on between the enterprises, and there was no way becomeing other.
Therefore, it is useless to say the system in which stockholder's intention is reflected more immediately, because the stockholders (the center) are themselves the big enterprises, and they conspire and cooperate under the mutually common profit.
The company had dreaded the criticism and the exposure in the stockholder rally only because it influenced the fame of the company and ruined the powers of top manager in the company, and not because it led to the rejection of the policy of the company or the retreat and the dismissal of the director. They are grasping overwhelming majority and understand that they easily obtain the majority from the beginning.
The liberal's saying of "the Restriction by the stockholder" is the restrict by the individual stockholder, that is, by "citizens," they are the petty bourgeois who save the sizable sum of money and are investing this in the stock. Is it not too clear that such people are irrelevant to what "restriction" to the company and are essentially powerless one?
Here, each small stockholder and an individual stockholder do not actually have power.
They are already the existence of 20% or less of the entire stock possession, and are the individual and asunder existence. So they are not able to concentrate as one power.
Actually, it is nonsense and is useless to try to fight against the big enterprise and the rot with depending on an individual stockholder, that is, petty bourgeois . The petty bourgeois will not fight as long as their profit will not be cruelly ruined and does extremely halfway and compromising even if fights.
It is not the one that it is better the stockholder's power is as strong as the United States, because it is clear to see the fact that the enterprise manager in the United States sounds out the stockholder's feelings and changes the difficulty of the enterprise to the worker at once, easily does dismissal and selling the enterprise, and the like.
The reason that the managers in the United States have the sense of responsibility and the managers in Japan does not might be nonsense. "The Responsibility" mentioned here is the one to the stockholder and does not at all the one to the workers. "The Responsibility" to the stockholder might be completely another one as "the Responsibility" to the entire society.
The workers can confirm how nonsense fantasy it is that we can "restrict" he monopolistic capital at the present age by the restriction by the stockholder. The Liberal's nonsense and powerlessness are exposed just to the place where they can take out only such "solution plan."
They can take out various reasons even very much in addition of course, because the defects that should be able to be criticized even very much is filled in this large capital system.
<> We can pic up the cause of rot very much.
They comment on a lot of defects that there is chairman and counselor's powers besides president's powers in the company, and it becomes the state of "Double powers" (This opinion "proofs" this pulling to the behind-the curtain politics of a retired emperor and the experience of relation between the emperor and the general in the history of Japan politely), and that Japanese enterprises have been lived in the sysstem depending on the "administration" and they have not been clearly conscios of their management responsibility in the competitive society.
According to this last reason, it becomes the solution of the problem to do "deregulation" and to accomplish the free competition, however do they not have blared out that the free and unrestrained management of the large capital will be able to bring the social harm and just the restriction of the big enterprise is necessary?
The party named the liberal is quite inconstant and it is not possible for them to stand on a consistent standpoint even in some measure at all.
Moreover, there is an insistence of establishing the system of "in-house" securing the ethics due to the insufficiency only by expressing ethics, too.
(It is that the capitalism has a large social limit historically.)
It is gIn-house system that checks the violation of the rule" that such a critic takes out. They say that it is necessary to make the system to be able to decide the intention reasonably in the company, it is not better and the origin of the confusion that the charman or the couselor have the big powers against the president and the company is in the state of "double power" (See The Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. in this time), the meeting of the representative directors becomes a mere shell and the one collecting the companion, it is necessary to put the representative director of the outside into the meeting of the representative directors or to decrease the representative director's member, moreover, it is necessary to make the original role, that is, the election of the president and the decision making of the company regained neatly.
Of course, it is easy if the corrupting big enterprise can be revived by giving "the Original function" to the meeting of the representative director. However, how do you do actually if it is assumed that even this meeting of the representative director is the ringleader of rot? It might be too clear that the ringleader of rot cannot correct the deep rot that becomes incorrigible.
As for the information opening to the public, though we do not deny the meaning of it, however, the big enterprise will not open and will not able to open the definite "information" completely such as own illegalities and bad debts to the public. To do these kind of things, the company will lose the confidence at once and face the crisis. No one will be sure to say that a social panic will not occur.
And secondarily, even when "the information opening to the public" is performed by the big enterprise, it will always stay in the one only cheating and on the surface. The information opening to the public is hardly to have the meaning in eliminating various badness of the enterprise. It is limited to the partial and trivial one even if done. An inconvenient "information" and definite "information" for the enterprise might have been concealed after all.
Therefore, it is only fantasy to think that it is possible to fight against the large monopoly by "the information opening to the public," too.
Of course, it might be useless to say "The world of 'me' such as seniors and juniors enters into the enterprise that should be "public" and it brings the situation of doing cool the illegality for the company." Why on earth is the enterprise the world of "public?" Does not it become the hotbed of all illegality and corruption because it is exactly the world of "me?"
<> The company is not an organization of "public."
Such a public opinion calls the company the one for the stockholder. However,why is the one for the stockholder the organization of "public?" From when does the profit of the stockholder become the profit of the entire society?
Moreover, is the company producing and offering service for the entire society? However, the enterprise does so only because it brings a profit there. In such meaning, why is the enterprise acting for self-interest the organization of "public?"
It might be clear that the corruption of the enterprise has been produced and deepened only because it is exactly the power organized for "me" (profit) and it works after all for "me."
The reason that the enterprise "does not have the consideration of the own responsibility" is also that it works essentially for "self-interest" (profit). Actually, the enterprise works also all the crimes for the profit just because the enterprise has "Responsibility" for the profit.
The bourgeois, liberal criticism is exactly nonsense and irrelevant for the reason.
Just for the reason, to fight against the rot of the company is to fight against the system of self-interest, the system of profit, and we cannot cut off these two things at all.
It is too clear that we cannot fight against the stock company, the monopolistic capital in the present age with emphasizing it as the Communust Party and the liberals, that is, the company is the organization of "public," be conscious the responsibility, accomplish the original role, (it is necessary to do the "democratic" restriction just for it.) Such an insistence is equal to the beautification of the monopolistic capital and to the expressing of the eternity.
The monopolistic capital at the present age exposed the rotted and fearful anti-society. The worker emphasizes that it is a capital nature (at least, a essential side and opportunity) and it is the one that comes out to the surface when capitalism develops and it becomes the age to be replaced with socialism.