Lovecraftian Corporations

-- By AndersonDalmeus - 01 Mar 2024

Notions of individual freedoms may be at odds with the natural propensity to organize into groups. Two potential issues for maintaining individual freedom in the face of a world governed by organizations can be seen in the nature of corporations’ law. First the recognition of the corporate entity as a distinct legal entity within the legal ecosystem. Second the cost of joining an organization, that is to be bound to any organization, requires the giving up of something of material value such as yielding capital to the corporation for its formation. By recognizing the corporation as a separate legal entity and having to provide it with its own property that may be subject to various forms of legal powers and regulation it creates an incentive for the individual to yield their own interests for the maintenance of the corporation’s wellbeing.

Individual freedoms can be thought of as existing primarily and most importantly in the present. Yesterday is set in stone and cannot be changed, as far as we know. An individual’s freedom tomorrow is a bit more free than yesterday but requires a balancing act. Actions and choices contingent upon tomorrow are too uncertain to be regarded as free. But at the same time, if we knew precisely what would occur tomorrow then we would be made less free because our decisions would inevitably have to conform to those future outcomes. Freedom in its purest form is immediate and must be acted on in the present. However, the duties one must take on for another’s sake binds what they are able to do and able to choose in the present. For example, someone who has children has fewer individual freedoms than someone who does not because they have a duty to care for that child. Duties bind organizations together. It is the certainty, or at least the good faith, that you might have in others in the organization that keeps the organization intact. But these duties are limiting factors on future actions. A member of someone I am organized with should be predictable because they have a duty to the organization to serve in such and such a capacity. And this is true for corporations, governments, and groupings in general. Even something as innocuous as a friend group will develop norms that bind the individual in the form of peer pressure. The organizational ties that bind individuals in large organizations especially, whether legal or otherwise, compel actions and decisions that are bound by the needs of the organization. An individual entity that acts to preserve itself is not constrained into action because its needs and actions are conjoined. But actions taken for the benefit of another may be considered burdensome because they were not taken out of the natural drives of the individual conferring the benefit. Thus, duties and obligations imposed by an organization will necessarily bind individuals.

Particularly in the case of corporate organizations, the systems of relationships that form an organization takes on a life of its own when competing against other organizations. The needs and interests of the organization are more pronounced when it must sustain itself through destroying or merging into another organization. For corporations competing with each other individuals must view other organizations competing for market share as obstacles and overcome them. This doesn’t call on the individual to examine their relationship with the competing organization or their relationships with individuals of the organization. Often times individuals in a business will have noncompete and nondisclosure agreements among other agreements designed to incentivize and compel them away from becoming competitors. Organizations will also exercise pressure on individuals who potentially could be competitors through systems designed to coerce individuals into an employment relationship by creating a prohibitively expensive barrier to entry. For example, the cost of acquiring a legal education may be so prohibitively high that an individual has little choice other than to yield to the financial stability offered by a large established organization. By creating a barrier, or even just the illusion of a barrier, to private practice Law firms ensure that potential competitors may only succeed by paying some fealty and service to them first Another prime example of how organizational competition causes the individual to yield further to an organization is war. When countries are at war it recharacterizes individual relationships between the citizens of those countries. It may engender nationalistic feelings and greater perceived obligations to organizations that did not exist prior. It will also create an antagonistic relationship between individuals of the two warring states where one did not exist prior. It is not necessarily left up to the individual who is friend or foe. During times of war the state gains extraordinary power to impose itself on individuals and noncompliance can result in imprisonment.

Trying to maintain a sense of individual autonomy and freedom in a world where organizational power reigns more and more supreme will therefore be a challenge for future generations. Resisting the forces that call on the individual to conform will only grow more difficult as entrenched organizational powers continue to seek more influence and control to maintain themselves. Self-destructive radical acts of resistance may become more normal as the ones who do not conform and wish to keep their individual freedoms are only those on the fringes of consciousness who have not made the calculation that their own freedom is worth more than what conformity can offer.

Paragraphing and outlining would be beneficial. Readers are entitled to structure, not 924 words in one paragraph.

What does the literary metaphor actually accomplish for the reader? Improvement here mens offering something that goes further than an assertion of one extended metaphor. "Complexity" as a generator of unique organizational outcomes (whether the "corporation," the "state," "inequality" or "hierarchy" is not historically justifiable against the long background, as David Graeber and David Wengrow show in The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity.

I think improvement lies in the direction of a careful rewrite. The central idea, shorn of metaphor, can be clearly stated. Structured discussion of how you came by the idea, related to others' ideas or writings, can lead to a conclusion that the reader can both follow and also expand in one or more suggested new directions for herself.