3 ms·

This is more of an American thing - the slow and subtle ceding of autonomy and power to corporates, with the expectations that they should behave like country s

This is more of an American thing - the slow and subtle ceding of autonomy and power to corporates, with the expectations that they should behave like country states and be political. It's a very dangerous idea that Americans are being slowly brainwashed into, to repose more and more faith on corporates than their own democracy! This is the kind of thinking that lead to imperialism, with the Dutch East India Company being the poster boy of the idea as the world's richest corporate, with one of the largest private army in the world conquering and even ruling colonies. The idea that foreign companies shouldn't submit to the laws, rule and regulations of another country is a retrograde colonial idea that reeks of both racism and greed. CEOs are not elected representatives nor seasoned politicians.

smitty1e 5y ago
> The idea that foreign companies shouldn't submit to the laws, rule and regulations of another country is a retrograde colonial idea that reeks of both racism and greed. More to the point, one cannot dictate the actions of another under pressure. It's one thing to have a theoretical model of what others _should_ do when confronted with aggression. It's quite another to stay on the theoretical course when confronted by state actors backed by guns. Another dimension is those affected by our decisions. One might go down in a blaze of Leeroy Jenkins[1] glory if it's only oneself in the blaze. If ones actions put others in harm's way, things tend to get far more cautious. SUMMARY: it gets hard to be too harsh in these situations. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins
sdoering 5y ago
As much as I would like to agree with parts of your argument, I find it difficult. Maybe because I grew up in Germany and near the Iron Curtain to be more precise. There is an alternative, as a company can either be organized around values like money, shareholder value, opportunism or values like still making money but not at all costs. Acting based on humanistic values. This is a spectrum. And lots of grey between black and white. One could look to be one thing and behind the scenes actively act contrarian to this outside facade. Take many examples of people or companies in oppressive regimes that use their influence to protect others. For example out of personal interest I studied a lot of stories of people in the ranks of the NS regime (2nd World War) that did use their role to secure people being hunted by the state's ideology and others within the NS ranks. As well as many normal people. People like from average Else up to government officials. What I am incoherently rambling about is the fact that one can't always see the details from the outside while things unfold. These people would have been seen as part of the system. Not as actively working against it. Because if the later they would not have been able to work against the system. On the other hand there were a lot of opportunistic people as well. That would have looked a lot like the other category of people described. Maybe Spotify is just opportunistic. Maybe there is a hidden positive agenda. We don't yet know. So I would not try to have a definitive answer in my head.
jollybean 5y ago
"to repose more and more faith on corporates than their own democracy! " Corporations are a part of the system, that's the way it is. You want an iPhone, it's not going to be your government that makes it. While you do have a point ... it's a bit moot when we consider that 'corporatism' is at very minimum 'one of the pillars'. FYI I would support Swedish government requiring a more comprehensive embargo.
datavirtue 5y ago
I appreciate this point but my take on this is that corporations are running scared of social media...paranoid of normies boycottong their brands. To me this is good and is what was predicted as the next wave of progress by people like William Grieder. Citizens voting with their dollars. Mother's boycotted GE into leaving the weapons manufacturing business in the 1980s. There is an explicit policy against any type of weapons manufacturing inside the company to this day. I do agree with your premise that this is inappropriate since power is supposed to rest with elected representatives but I until we ban corporations from political contributions (any activity) then we will have to live with bullying corporations via social media.
- kbelder 5y ago
  >running scared of social media... citizens voting with their dollars. That's not an unreasonable idea, but the trouble I see is that those two concepts are surprisingly different. The din on social media is not reflective of the general citizenry. Think of almost any issue that the country is split fairly evenly on. How lopsided is the outrage on social media? Right now, it's a weapon wielded by a minority, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.

smitty1e 5y ago

> The idea that foreign companies shouldn't submit to the laws, rule and regulations of another country is a retrograde colonial idea that reeks of both racism and greed. More to the point, one cannot dictate the actions of another under pressure. It's one thing to have a theoretical model of what others _should_ do when confronted with aggression. It's quite another to stay on the theoretical course when confronted by state actors backed by guns. Another dimension is those affected by our decisions. One might go down in a blaze of Leeroy Jenkins[1] glory if it's only oneself in the blaze. If ones actions put others in harm's way, things tend to get far more cautious. SUMMARY: it gets hard to be too harsh in these situations. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins

sdoering 5y ago

As much as I would like to agree with parts of your argument, I find it difficult. Maybe because I grew up in Germany and near the Iron Curtain to be more precise. There is an alternative, as a company can either be organized around values like money, shareholder value, opportunism or values like still making money but not at all costs. Acting based on humanistic values. This is a spectrum. And lots of grey between black and white. One could look to be one thing and behind the scenes actively act contrarian to this outside facade. Take many examples of people or companies in oppressive regimes that use their influence to protect others. For example out of personal interest I studied a lot of stories of people in the ranks of the NS regime (2nd World War) that did use their role to secure people being hunted by the state's ideology and others within the NS ranks. As well as many normal people. People like from average Else up to government officials. What I am incoherently rambling about is the fact that one can't always see the details from the outside while things unfold. These people would have been seen as part of the system. Not as actively working against it. Because if the later they would not have been able to work against the system. On the other hand there were a lot of opportunistic people as well. That would have looked a lot like the other category of people described. Maybe Spotify is just opportunistic. Maybe there is a hidden positive agenda. We don't yet know. So I would not try to have a definitive answer in my head.

jollybean 5y ago

"to repose more and more faith on corporates than their own democracy! " Corporations are a part of the system, that's the way it is. You want an iPhone, it's not going to be your government that makes it. While you do have a point ... it's a bit moot when we consider that 'corporatism' is at very minimum 'one of the pillars'. FYI I would support Swedish government requiring a more comprehensive embargo.

datavirtue 5y ago

I appreciate this point but my take on this is that corporations are running scared of social media...paranoid of normies boycottong their brands. To me this is good and is what was predicted as the next wave of progress by people like William Grieder. Citizens voting with their dollars. Mother's boycotted GE into leaving the weapons manufacturing business in the 1980s. There is an explicit policy against any type of weapons manufacturing inside the company to this day. I do agree with your premise that this is inappropriate since power is supposed to rest with elected representatives but I until we ban corporations from political contributions (any activity) then we will have to live with bullying corporations via social media.

kbelder 5y ago
>running scared of social media... citizens voting with their dollars. That's not an unreasonable idea, but the trouble I see is that those two concepts are surprisingly different. The din on social media is not reflective of the general citizenry. Think of almost any issue that the country is split fairly evenly on. How lopsided is the outrage on social media? Right now, it's a weapon wielded by a minority, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.