cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/24998458
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
285 points (96.7% liked)
Anti-Corporate Movement
529 readers
145 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 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thats very much inaccurate. General strikes and other riots have brought us most of the positive things we actually have. Capital is trying to „trumpwash“ the past to make it seem like its pointless.
Look at 250.000 people marching through germany this past weekend and nearly a million since beginning of the year.
I'm not saying strikes didn't bring results, only that today they are less useful than they used to be. (perhaps largely as a result of their past effectiveness)
What will a million peaceful demonstrators achieve? Mostly nothing, or at best the lukewarming of a controversial law. Nowadays demonstrations are means of expression more than action, useful as a morale boost and social gathering for the movement mostly.
We will see. General strike means: no end, no work. The damage to every connected system would be immeasurable, compared to a normal protest. I think we might have different ideas on what a general strike means.
Strikes per se are not and cannot be defanged.
What can be defanged are people's ability to do a strike. If people do it anyway, the effectiveness is no less today than it was a century ago. The issue is recent laws prohibiting certain types of strike actions and threatening gaol for those who engage in strikes, which can discourage solidarity. It makes striking a higher risk for the worker, but if they do it anyway, there's no real way to get around the fact that the business needs workers to...well, work.
Agree with all your points, but I think our world being bigger and more interconnected does blunt strikes: not only are corporations bigger and have better access to capital (helping wait out the strike), but also alternatives are more readily available if a worker stops producing.
What I mean is back in the day if the coal mine stopped then all local industry, heating, cooking, etc. would stop, so there would be immense social pressure on ending the strike. But nowadays downstream consumers would just switch to an other source. In fact it is an argument often used: "if the local steel mill workers strike, they'll just close it down and move production to China, and they'll be worse off".
Also police and media handling of strikes is much smarter, the media is more effective at vilifying them and police riot control can effectively disperse them without so much violence that it would only increase anger and make public opinion sympathetic, like would happen a century ago when policemen would open fire instead of using rubber bullets, CS gas, water cannons and such.