this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
20 points (85.7% liked)

Anti-Corporate Movement

782 readers
521 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:

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
 

cross-posted from: https://leminal.space/post/20980927

When television first started, there were 3 channels and a handful of commercials. After a few decades of more channels and more ads appearing, cable showed up. Now you could pay a subscription to get premium content without ads!

But after a decade, not only were they putting ads on cable you paid a premium to watch, they were speeding up both the shows and the ads to fit more into breaks that kept getting longer.

Younger people are just starting to see the cycle is underway again with streaming services, but over the last 10ish years, I've noticed all the various cliques going "why is {our interest} going to shit" as if it were an isolated incident and not happening everywhere.

The first act of capitalism when it was created was the slave trade. Corporations have always been vehicles the ultra rich use to extract wealth.

Revenue is how much money a company brings in selling things. Profit is how much of that remains after paying for materials, leases, power, reinvesting into the business, and paying wages. Basically, CEOs are paid 300x more than employees to defer maintenance and suppress wages.

Economics 101- charge as much as you can, pay as little as possible. Any corporation that makes billions in profit only does so by gouging customers and stiffing workers.

Real wages are stagnant, pensions aren't a thing, and they're trying to get rid of social security. There's a reason we're told to use things like HSA, 529s, and 401ks: it enriches the already rich.

There is something called a fiduciary duty to shareholders which basically means publicly traded corporations must act in the best interest of investors. It SOUNDS like a good idea, but it's not really well defined.

The reality of the situation is BlackRock basically owns the stock market and the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by a group of banks- not the US government. Those banks are publicly traded corporations that own chunks of everything and each other. It's a giant rich guy circle jerk that basically means the recent uniform RTO mandates were probably from Larry Fink himself due to how central commercial real estate is to collateral for things like naked shorting.

Inflation isn't things costing more; it's the dollar being worth less as more money exists. The reason the rich buy art, watches, and shit is because they benefit from inflation. If you hold on to $5,000 for a decade you have $5,000 that buys less after a decade of inflation. If you buy a painting, jewelry, or whatever, it appreciates overtime being worth more than $5k.

Federal minimum wage was 7.25 in 2008. Not much, but you could buy 1-3 shares of AMD or 18" of Subway. Today, M2 (a measure of money in the economy) is three times what it was in 2008 and minimum wage is still $7.25 and might get you 6" of sandwich. AMD, on the other hand, currently sits around $120 a share.

Someone that works to eat will always be falling behind while someone that's not struggling can just load up on wealth that keeps growing. A majority of the country doesn't have money on hand to deal with a $500 emergency while more than half the wealth of the country is owned by a handful of people that make lifetimes of wealth through passive investments alone.

Unfortunately, it's all very complicated and basically everyone is stupid most of the time with only brief windows of subject specific competence. Reason and rationality is a best case outcome but people act like it's the default.

Welcome to the meat grinder. None of us matter.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I know Cory Doctorow (who coined the term) has said that he doesn't mind if people use the term "enshittification" to simply mean "product gets worse", but the definition he gave it specifically refers to anti-capitalistic practices (what he calls "technofeudalism").

"Enshittificiation" as described by Doctorow hurts businesses too. "Capitalism" definitionally implies the presence of a competitive market. "Enshittification" (like you said nothing new) describes what happens when a market is no longer competitive because it controlled by a single entity (monopoly). "Enshittification" happens when the government stops enforcing laws that protect free markets and allow capitalism to break down.

Sorry for being a pedant but I see those words gets thrown around a lot in ways that IMO can muddle the meaning.

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but under Capitalism monopolies are an inevitability no matter how many regulations you put into place. It's a structural tendency given how competition, capital accumulation and the pursuit of extraction of surplus value drives firms to outproduce/underprice/eliminate rivals for survival, and so larger firms outcomplete/absord or destroy smaller ones as a result, turning them into monopolies. It inevitably concentrates capital.

Regulations only delay this given how it's a reactive measure rather than treating the problem at its root - companies adapt, find loopholes or just lobby (one prominent example being breakup of AT&T, it took them like 2 decades after regulation to remonopolize).

So by that logic, enshittification is an inevitability if it's the result of monopolization, given how monopolies themselves are inevitable.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 31 minutes ago

I'm just saying, the term "capitalism":

is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.

OP said that enshittification is "the MO of capitalism", and that just definitionally doesn't really make sense because enshittification (as defined by Cory Doctorow) happens not under capitalism, but what he calls "techno-feudalism". Where you see monopolies existing and antitrust laws not being enforced, you are not seeing capitalism because you are not seeing a competitive market.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Since we're being pedantic (love it!), I'd add that monopoly is not required for enshittification. It may lead to monopoly, but that isn't necessary. Amazon isn't (arguably) yet a monopoly, nor is Facebook, but they are both certainly enshittified. You could argue they are effective monopolies, but the jury could deadlock there.

Cory was talking about platforms, not necessarily any capitalist venture, but it holds true that more than platforms can enshittify.

That said, things simply getting worse doesn't fit my understanding, unless it follows the pattern below:

Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.

I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two-sided market," where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 22 hours ago

Yeah absolutely, and woo pedantry that's on me for oversimplifying. I do recall reading (I can't find it right now) an essay where he said that "enshittification" as he describes it can happen in any situation where an entity has trapped both consumers and businesses but that it's more common with tech companies because they move faster than regulations do.

things simply getting worse doesn’t fit my understanding,

fwiw I totally agree but if I may play an uno-reverse-pedantry card on you, Cory has said he doesn't care if someone uses the word to simply mean "gets shitty".

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I get your point but yes, it is pedantic in the way that it is all the same.

Capitalism is not the same as trade. It is the ability to own things one does not occupy, as well as amass things others need. If you want to be less serious, we call it grifting.

Enshittification is of course counter to the functioning of a certain part of the market. But it is rooted in capitalisms tendency to consume itself.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

As long as we agree that the term "enshittification" describes a failure of capitalism (and not it's "MO").

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Although I get your point somehow (like, its not the EXACT definition) but its not important. It is ONE of the many forms of capitalist failure. Maybe its not its MO but it definitely is TENDENCY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 22 hours ago

I agree, like I said I fully own that I was being pedantic over definitions.

[–] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

It is the MO of unregulated capitalism.