4 ms·

Corporatocracy is probably the more accurate term, but the term neofeudalism isn't exactly a huge stretch. The only real difference today is that at least in th

Corporatocracy is probably the more accurate term, but the term neofeudalism isn't exactly a huge stretch. The only real difference today is that at least in theory a serf can become a lord, but the same power dynamic remains. When chattel slavery ended many of the freed slaves became sharecroppers, bound to the land by eternal debts that could never be repaid. Although they were no longer legally bound to their "masters", for many their lives were not really any better. Although in principle the monopolies and the government are separate institutions, we all know that the reality is that our politicians are bought out by the corporations, and the regulators are staffed by ex-employees of the very companies they are supposed to be regulating. We used to bust monopolies, but since the 70s or so the regulators have become very lax, and practically every industry has become more consolidated than it's ever been (finance, advertising, airlines, utilities, telecom, agriculture, healthcare, etc). What's interesting to me is that whenever Google/Facebook does something authoritarian that would seem to violate some principle of liberty we deem sacred (eg. censorship, violating freedom of speech), many if not most of the comments seem to rationalize the corporation's decision as exercising their own free speech. But when you're Reddit with 430M monthly active users, your userbase is the population equivalent of the world's 3rd largest country, and so you're effectively the equivalent of a nation-state. When you're Amazon with 750k employees, then your employees could fill up a city. Does the principle of democracy only apply to country's governments, or does it also extend to corporate monopolies?

pmiller2 6y ago
> Corporatocracy.... I think it's usually referred to as "corporatism," but, yes. Specifically, I think our current form of government in the US is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I think it's usually referred to as "corporatism" No, corporatism is a completely different thing; it comes from the same root (“corpora” = “body”) as does “corporation”, but it doesn't come from or refer to corporations but rather to the whole of society with institutions in different domains being a singular whole body working together. It was a pretty big idea on Catholic social/political theory for a few centuries, before getting radically reworked into a central part of the basis for Italian Fascism. Rule by the capitalist class through the entities creates by the State to advance the interests of capital (of which corporations are the foremost) is called “capitalism”, a name coined for that system by it's socialist critics who were quite concerned by what it did to everyone else.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
Those "principles of liberty" are aimed at protecting the American citizen from her government, not from corporations. If it was the government doing "authoritarian" things, then that is potentially actionable under US laws. Otherwise, Big Tech is not breaking any laws or violating anyone's rights. Google/Facebook are just websites doing what website owners do. They decide what pages to publish. Unfortunately most HN commenters do not understand that distinction. No doubt many HN readers do, but most readers are not also commenters. Perhaps Google/Facebook should be run by the US government. At least then users would have some rights they could enforce. Government could not get away with doing what Google/Facebook do. If the politicians are bought out and regulators are staffed by ex-employees then there is one other way to modify corporate behaviour. Trial lawyers. Death by a thousand cuts. All we need is one good law that gives internet users some rights to sue Google/Facebook for the creepy way they do "business" and I think we would start to see change. Imagine the things that could be uncovered in discovery. It would all be laid bare. Big Tech is doing what a government only wishes it could do. Consitutional law protects citizens from government, not corporations. In the US, coporations have nearly as many rights as people if not more. The constutional law protects them from governement, too.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  > Big Tech is not breaking any laws or violating anyone's rights. Perhaps in a legal sense, but most people criticizing Big Tech policies aren't debating what is or isn't legal under current laws, but rather what should or should not be legal. Current laws give monopolies and corporations an enormous amount of freedom and leniency, and perhaps a certain degree of power and societal importance should entail greater restraints.
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    If what Big Tech does violates no law, personal rights, nor any contractual agreement with users, it is not rational to believe users can hold Big Tech accountable. Sure, they can debate and complain. The online forums and messaging platforms they use to debate and voice their complaints are run by Big Tech. It achieves nothing really. Maybe it makes users feel better to vent. Big Tech knows how to deal with the whining. The threat of having to change their behaviour is negligible. If there was a possibility they could be sued for this behaviour, then the threat might become non-negigible. The "legal sense" matters because it is a threat the company's management would take seriously. The threat of "people complaining about us on the internet" is not a serious one. It costs very little, often nothing, to make it go away.
atq2119 6y ago
> we all know that the reality is that our politicians are bought out by the corporations, and the regulators are staffed by ex-employees of the very companies they are supposed to be regulating While some amount of cynicism is probably healthy, it's very important to keep in mind that these observations aren't absolutes. There are many, many politicians who aren't bought, and regulators who are genuinely fine people who want to do their jobs responsibly. It's important to make this distinction, because we can use our voices and votes to increase their power relative to the bad apples, and thereby make the system better. Unfortunately, it's a slow process. But if your cynicism takes over and prevents you from taking even these little steps, then you're part of the problem.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  > There are many, many politicians who aren't bought There are some, sure. Alexandria O'Casio-Cortez for example ran a campaign on grassroots donations lambasting politicians taking corporate donations and prioritizing their corporate constituents. But when the average U.S. senator spends 2/3 of the last 2 years of their term fundraising, I don't think this cynicism is unwarranted. Hopefully the takeaway from my cynicism isn't that there is no hope, but that more drastic measures are needed to make real change. All these problems imply serious structural/systemic inefficiencies in our system. Simple telling people to vote has not really gotten us very far as the problem runs deeper.

pmiller2 6y ago

> Corporatocracy.... I think it's usually referred to as "corporatism," but, yes. Specifically, I think our current form of government in the US is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I think it's usually referred to as "corporatism" No, corporatism is a completely different thing; it comes from the same root (“corpora” = “body”) as does “corporation”, but it doesn't come from or refer to corporations but rather to the whole of society with institutions in different domains being a singular whole body working together. It was a pretty big idea on Catholic social/political theory for a few centuries, before getting radically reworked into a central part of the basis for Italian Fascism. Rule by the capitalist class through the entities creates by the State to advance the interests of capital (of which corporations are the foremost) is called “capitalism”, a name coined for that system by it's socialist critics who were quite concerned by what it did to everyone else.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

Those "principles of liberty" are aimed at protecting the American citizen from her government, not from corporations. If it was the government doing "authoritarian" things, then that is potentially actionable under US laws. Otherwise, Big Tech is not breaking any laws or violating anyone's rights. Google/Facebook are just websites doing what website owners do. They decide what pages to publish. Unfortunately most HN commenters do not understand that distinction. No doubt many HN readers do, but most readers are not also commenters. Perhaps Google/Facebook should be run by the US government. At least then users would have some rights they could enforce. Government could not get away with doing what Google/Facebook do. If the politicians are bought out and regulators are staffed by ex-employees then there is one other way to modify corporate behaviour. Trial lawyers. Death by a thousand cuts. All we need is one good law that gives internet users some rights to sue Google/Facebook for the creepy way they do "business" and I think we would start to see change. Imagine the things that could be uncovered in discovery. It would all be laid bare. Big Tech is doing what a government only wishes it could do. Consitutional law protects citizens from government, not corporations. In the US, coporations have nearly as many rights as people if not more. The constutional law protects them from governement, too.

JSavageOne 6y ago
> Big Tech is not breaking any laws or violating anyone's rights. Perhaps in a legal sense, but most people criticizing Big Tech policies aren't debating what is or isn't legal under current laws, but rather what should or should not be legal. Current laws give monopolies and corporations an enormous amount of freedom and leniency, and perhaps a certain degree of power and societal importance should entail greater restraints.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  If what Big Tech does violates no law, personal rights, nor any contractual agreement with users, it is not rational to believe users can hold Big Tech accountable. Sure, they can debate and complain. The online forums and messaging platforms they use to debate and voice their complaints are run by Big Tech. It achieves nothing really. Maybe it makes users feel better to vent. Big Tech knows how to deal with the whining. The threat of having to change their behaviour is negligible. If there was a possibility they could be sued for this behaviour, then the threat might become non-negigible. The "legal sense" matters because it is a threat the company's management would take seriously. The threat of "people complaining about us on the internet" is not a serious one. It costs very little, often nothing, to make it go away.

atq2119 6y ago

> we all know that the reality is that our politicians are bought out by the corporations, and the regulators are staffed by ex-employees of the very companies they are supposed to be regulating While some amount of cynicism is probably healthy, it's very important to keep in mind that these observations aren't absolutes. There are many, many politicians who aren't bought, and regulators who are genuinely fine people who want to do their jobs responsibly. It's important to make this distinction, because we can use our voices and votes to increase their power relative to the bad apples, and thereby make the system better. Unfortunately, it's a slow process. But if your cynicism takes over and prevents you from taking even these little steps, then you're part of the problem.

JSavageOne 6y ago
> There are many, many politicians who aren't bought There are some, sure. Alexandria O'Casio-Cortez for example ran a campaign on grassroots donations lambasting politicians taking corporate donations and prioritizing their corporate constituents. But when the average U.S. senator spends 2/3 of the last 2 years of their term fundraising, I don't think this cynicism is unwarranted. Hopefully the takeaway from my cynicism isn't that there is no hope, but that more drastic measures are needed to make real change. All these problems imply serious structural/systemic inefficiencies in our system. Simple telling people to vote has not really gotten us very far as the problem runs deeper.