i'm a little disappointed. corporate personhood is a necessary result of the socialization of production. reversing it is about as well thought out as supporting right-to-work legislation. it's ideological liberalism.

rather, there needs to be a focus to reverse the second half of the ruling, which focused on limited liability. limited liability is about reducing investor risk. this is the real problem, here. if you put the risk back in the investment, these companies will be unable to get off the ground.

for the few that do, a better incentive is to hold the entire organization accountable. no one person can claim that this labour belongs to them; no one person can claim this decision belongs to them.

http://passmassamendment.wikispaces.com/Endorsements+%26+Advisors

what you're going to end up with if you abolish corporate personhood is a mess of liability. investors will rarely be held negligent, as they'll rarely have any direct decision making power. rather, you'll have middle management and low level workers constantly taking the blame because they're the ones that were legally negligent. you'll have people in the same company suing each other.

it will be yet another example of the failure of liberalism. as if we needed another.

on the other hand, if you socialize liability across the company then you necessarily ultimately place all negligence in the hands of the owners. again: the key here is not taking away personhood, it's abolishing limited liability.

more to the point, it's hard to see why chomsky (of all people) would argue that the solution to neo-liberalism lies in continuing the process of atomization.