5 ms·
> orchestrated and financed by a network of organisations with links to the tech industry and security services As any dictatorship, corporate dictatorships wa
by gumballindie 3y ago
> orchestrated and financed by a network of organisations with links to the tech industry and security services
As any dictatorship, corporate dictatorships want to understand our behaviour and manipulate it. And as any dictatorship there is a not insignificant portion of society that supports and facilitates it - see people that bootlick apple, amazon, microsoft, google and so on. When will people understand that fighting back is crucial? And it doesnt have to be violent. Low rate their services, report them whenever possible to local customer protection agencies (where you even have them), avoid using their products, advice others not to use them, spread knowledge about their doings and starve them of your skills.
Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago> Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism. But this is capitalism.
- Detrytus 3y agoNot really, no. The root of all evil is so called "limited liability". LLCs and Corporations should be illegal, only privately held companies where there's no boundary between what belongs to the owner and what to the company should be allowed to operate. And the owner should be criminally responsible for the actions of his company.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago> LLCs and Corporations should be illegal, only privately held companies where there's no boundary between what belongs to the owner and what to the company should be allowed to operate. That's seems counter to some of the very foundations of capitalism, i.e. the concepts of markets, creditors, and shareholders. In any case, it wouldn't work at the current scale.
- pyuser583 3y agoThat’s counter to the ideas of civilization. The first corporations were monasteries. The monks held all in common, so the property belonged to the abbey. Should that be illegal? Should reporters at the New York Times be treated as personal servants of the publisher?
- malermeister 3y ago> Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism. This is capitalism, or what it inevitably devolves into. No need to bring communism into it.
- gumballindie 3y agoCapitalism means free movement of capital. Clogging it in the hands of a few corporations is not. Capitalism means small and medium sized businesses. Furthermore these corporations want us to live in massive communes controlled by them where they dictate how we dress eat think and live. This is communism disguised as capitalism.
- malermeister 3y agoFree movement of capital inevitably ends in consolidation, until it's clogged in the hands of a few corporations, to use your lingo. It's why real life capitalism doesn't work on a long enough timescale.
- tremon 3y agoCapitalism means free movement of capital No it doesn't. It means that power structures follow the allocation of capital. And just like power tends to gravitate towards the powerful, so does capital under capitalism. It has nothing to do with movement of capital, which is a property of market strategy rather than of an economic system.
- arrosenberg 3y agoCommunism pretty explicitly involves the proletariat seizing the means of production, but go on. Cartels and anticompetitive agreements are part and parcel of a devolved capitalism where the government provides no rules (or provides rules but no enforcement) to restrain capital.
- Georgelemental 3y agoCommunism is when one entity controls both the means of production and the monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter a whit whether the head honcho calls himself CEO or Comrade, or whatever lies he tells about "the proletariat" or "corporate values."
- malermeister 3y agoThat's just silly. By this definition, absolute monarchies, for example, would be communist as well. You know, Louis XIV, that famous commie!
- Georgelemental 3y agoIn France under the Sun King, there was independent industry. The King set laws that corporations had to follow, but he didn't directly manage all production.
- malermeister 3y agoStalin didn't directly manage all production either.
- Alupis 3y agoThe Party sure did.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- croes 3y agoCorporate communism? Oxymoron. It's just the sad reality of real life capitalism.
- Georgelemental 3y agoNot an oxymoron at all. In communism, Comrade Glorious Leader and the Politburo control both the means of production and the monopoly on legitimate violence. In corporatism, Chief Executive Officer and top shareholders control both the means of production and the monopoly on legitimate violence. Different words, same reality. (In properly-functioning capitalism, the means of production are split between many independent, competing corporations, and the state uses its monopoly on violence to preserve that competition.)
- Dylan16807 3y ago> Comrade Glorious Leader and the Politburo control both the means of production and the monopoly on legitimate violence. This is not a description of communism.
- omnimus 3y agoIn properly functioning capitalism - means of production are split between many small independent corporations... In properly functioning communism - means of production are split between many small independent individuals... Who is roleplaying who?
- Georgelemental 3y agoPretty much every government that calls itself "communist" works that way in practice.
- croes 3y ago>Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American vernacular and legal parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism