It's been a long time since human beings were actually in control of corporations and not the other way around. These multinational behemoths are self-sustaining entities that exist outside of the control of civilized society and subsume the collective efforts of their employees into outcomes that are perverse and unethical, effectively stripping human beings of their agency and ensuring that all economic relationships tilt towards oppression and exploitation. You have my support.
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
16 points (94.4% liked)
Anti-Corporate Movement
341 readers
5 users here now
This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.
Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.
Current topics this includes but is not limited to:
- Meta's entry into the fediverse
- Game companies putting gambling mechanics in childrens games
- Embracer groups buyout and closing of smaller game studios
- IP trolls destroying small companies and keeping progress back for profit
Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.
Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.
But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.
But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.
But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.
But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
So reading the about section, a problem with the < 1billion USD criteria is a billion USD was a lot of money 10 years ago, a hell a lot of money 20 years ago and about all the money that existed in the world 70 years ago - due to a rapid increase of the money supply since Bretton Woods failed. It's a changing supply that tightens and loosens as central banks try to influence macro policy
I do get the sentiment and the desire to keep corporations in check since uncapped growth leads to corporations out growing major countries' GDP
I'll think on it some more and see if there could be something more timeless or stable
Sure mate. Feel free to contribute more nuanced ideas like x% of global money supply. But that has the downside that the central banks effectively work for the billionaire class so they will just print more money and make companies be able to become bigger. Printing money becomes obsolete if there are 1000x more companies in the world because of so much competition. Prices would plummet tomorrow.
Yeah it's very complex. I do agree that if actual competition were present, prices would adjust, but if the money supply is high then prices inevitability increase no matter how many firms are in a market. If the money supply is fixed, then 100% agree having caps on firm size would drive competition to a lower equilibrium since more firms would be introduced (assuming raw supply would be reached)
I think this is the hard part of having a money supply that in theory is infinite, it makes balancing macro equations a fool's errand or always passed off to future generation which is also delusionally hopeful
But since this is our reality, we must deal with it
Hell yeah. Corporations are mankind's natural predators, let's make them endangered if not extinct.
Imho the main problem is the profit seeking, not necessarily corporations. Although some corporations have achieved such size that that by itself might be a problem. But imagine that instead of pursuing max profit, corporations would pursue social happiness or anything more usefull than filling in the pockets of already rich shareholders, then those corporations would actually be good.
I agree that there is a alternate reality where corporations seek the good for the community but it sadly isnt this one. Imo the size of the corporations makes them ungovernable by definition and therefore gives them power to overrule and evade any sanctions against them. Thank you for contributing. :)