cross-posted from: https://lemmus.org/post/13724139
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
153 points (99.4% liked)
Anti-Corporate Movement
828 readers
565 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does this apply to all addictions like hard drugs, for example? Do you separate physiological and psychological addiction into two separate categories or do you combine them into one?
Trying to quit a hardcore Benzo or alcohol addiction can be fatal if not weened off, for example.
I would put reasons for starting a drug habit and continuation of a drug habit in two different categories.
Yes, of course. All addictions, despite the of course possible genetic predisposition and personal preference are a product of the surrounding system. If people have a shitty life and/or have no achievable goals, the danger of falling into such traps explodes statistically.
I don't think that's universally true. I think a lot of drug use starts with the people who someone associates with; if they use drugs, then you are more likely to join in than if you were never exposed to it in that way.
There is also the "cool" factor with children, like cigarettes (in the past), vaping, weed pens, etc.
You can of course argue that but you cant back it up. For that you would need to strip the system around the person which you cant. This means you cant know if that person who me someone who uses drugs would have gone the same way if the system wasnt shit.
People have been using drugs like alcohol since before humans even existed (I'm counting neanderthals as people here), so systemic issues can't be the only reason why people use drugs, as neanderthals didn't really form societies. There are even animals other than humans who consume fermented fruit to get drunk, probably just because it feels good.
You're mixing things up.
The pure use of drugs like alcohol (especially naturally occuring) has zero to do with addiction, which we were discussing.
Addiction stems from multiple factors. There needs to be opportunity (which even in prohibition exists), genetic factor (optional) and reason. The reason is arguably the biggest factor and while a person could technically just love slowly killing themselves, the numbers show that addiction rates are far higher if people are poor and unhealthy in the beginning, which is another sidehustle of capitalism.
So yes, its all capitalism.
Yes it does, because physiological addiction exists, even to naturally occurring substances like alcohol, opium, coca leaves, etc.
The reason to continue using a drug to the point of physiological or psychological addiction can be as simple as "it feels good". I do agree with you that a component of addiction is hardship, but I don't think that's the sole thing you can point to.
Also capitalism isn't unique in being an oppresive system. Before capitalism, there was feudalism, slavery, monarchies, etc. When you have power seekers able to gain power, these kinds of systemic outcomes are inevitable.
Now, there is also evidence to support your hypothesis, namely that I think there was a study done thag showed that previously homeless herion addicts were very easilly able to quit the drug on their own after being housed. I don't remember where I saw that study, though.