Oppression by corporations or governments?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Which is a bigger danger (currently)?

Let's put our commie hats on and turn on the Helicopters. On one hand governments have more power on day to day life and rights of people. On the other hand corporations answer to no one except a small amount of managers and with globalization continuing they have enough power to bully governments to do what they want by withholding financial support to an area.

I'd go with corporations being the bigger danger due to not having any checks or balances by the people.

Well it's more dangerous when corporations and governments work together to then screw over the people. Then when things go south, guess who gets hit the hardest.

inu-kun:
I'd go with corporations being the bigger danger due to not having any checks or balances by the people.

That's not entirely true. Technically, they are beholden to shareholders and customers.

In the former case, the impact of this is grossly diluted by the fact that a staggering amount of shares are owned by a very small number of people, and most of the population have no meaningful shares at all. The impact of customers is diluted by issues of whether enough customers will be aware (or care) of corporate infringements - collective action issues.

Broadly, however, I agree. A democratic government is more likely to be controllable by the people.

corperations, mostly because of the power they wield over the goverment in most places.

See that is why Communism is objectively superior to every other political system.
Because if the corporations belong to everybody then there is no way that they could possibly oppress the people.

Parasondox:
Well it's more dangerous when corporations and governments work together to then screw over the people. Then when things go south, guess who gets hit the hardest.

People in the south obviously DUH.

Whats the difference?

Saelune:
Whats the difference?

Well I don't get to vote for or against the head of the board of BP or NewsCorp but I do get to vote for or against the various parties running for office in Australia.

So there's a big difference.

Gordon_4:

Saelune:
Whats the difference?

Well I don't get to vote for or against the head of the board of BP or NewsCorp but I do get to vote for or against the various parties running for office in Australia.

So there's a big difference.

America voted against a Corporation running the Government, and yet we have President Trump.

Trump who is putting CEOs in charge of government positions and tearing down regulations that keep corporations in check.

So I reiterate, whats the difference?

Saelune:

Gordon_4:

Saelune:
Whats the difference?

Well I don't get to vote for or against the head of the board of BP or NewsCorp but I do get to vote for or against the various parties running for office in Australia.

So there's a big difference.

America voted against a Corporation running the Government, and yet we have President Trump.

Trump who is putting CEOs in charge of government positions and tearing down regulations that keep corporations in check.

So I reiterate, whats the difference?

In 4 years you can go to the Polling Booth and turn the twat out on his ear - if that was an option for the public regarding NewsCorp then Rupert Murdoch wouldn't still be a media baron.

Gordon_4:

Saelune:

Gordon_4:

Well I don't get to vote for or against the head of the board of BP or NewsCorp but I do get to vote for or against the various parties running for office in Australia.

So there's a big difference.

America voted against a Corporation running the Government, and yet we have President Trump.

Trump who is putting CEOs in charge of government positions and tearing down regulations that keep corporations in check.

So I reiterate, whats the difference?

In 4 years you can go to the Polling Booth and turn the twat out on his ear - if that was an option for the public regarding NewsCorp then Rupert Murdoch wouldn't still be a media baron.

I think you are taking my snide cynical remarks a tad too literally.

Honestly, it's not a very clear question.

Is the government democratic? Like, actually democratic? Then oppression by corporations is worse, because the policies of a democratic government can be altered by popular will, whereas the policies of a corporation are set through an undemocratic process and can only be altered by executive decision.

But if the government is non-democratic or outright authoritarian, it's difficult to argue that a corporation presents a larger threat for the simple fact that a government has much more power than a corporation does. Corporations are created by law; governments create law. A government not bound by moral, social, or political constraints is much more terrifying than a corporation not bound by government regulation.

Though, to be honest? The line between government and corporation is not as clear-cut as it may seem initially. Once the democratic process is dispensed with, the only difference between a government and a corporation is that one of them has a monopoly on the use of force. If a corporation became sufficiently powerful and/or the government sufficiently weak, then the corporation essentially is the government. At that point, the question is moot.

Where? In USA, unregulated corporations have always the inherent danger of putting profits over other people's safety, health and rights to the point of being hazardous to their customers, their own employees or even the society. The government didn't cause the economic crisis of 2007; the banking business did.

There is also the detail that the current President Trump has still close relationships with pretty important corporations (and it wouldn't be the first time a politician uses their influence in favor of their rich friends). So, yeah. IMO, corporations.

Dornedas:
See that is why Communism is objectively superior to every other political system.
Because if the corporations belong to everybody then there is no way that they could possibly oppress the people.

On the other hand, corporations become a monopoly, which causes severe issues to the public's living standards when it isn't properly managed (because the citizens have no option of going with a competitor for a better service). As an old Polish joke used to say:

"Why is there no meat?"
"Because we're marching towards socialism so fast that even the cattle can't keep up."

inu-kun:
Which is a bigger danger (currently)?

Let's put our commie hats on and turn on the Helicopters. On one hand governments have more power on day to day life and rights of people. On the other hand corporations answer to no one except a small amount of managers and with globalization continuing they have enough power to bully governments to do what they want by withholding financial support to an area.

I'd go with corporations being the bigger danger due to not having any checks or balances by the people.

In the US, the Corporations own/ run the government so at the moment they are one in the same. Corporations are the larger danger due to them seizing control of and using the force of the government to knock out competition, destroy the environment, use taxpayer money on themselves and enslave the people to their will by destroying workers rights " in the name of profits for their investors". When the corporations are in charge of the laws and decide how taxpayer money is spent, they create laws that place the corporations above the laws everyone must adhere to as they create the laws to control the people and serve their investors profits rather than serve the people.

Both nearly got me killed. There is none objectively worse, you have to evaluate each situation individually

Agema:

inu-kun:
I'd go with corporations being the bigger danger due to not having any checks or balances by the people.

That's not entirely true. Technically, they are beholden to shareholders and customers.

In the former case, the impact of this is grossly diluted by the fact that a staggering amount of shares are owned by a very small number of people, and most of the population have no meaningful shares at all. The impact of customers is diluted by issues of whether enough customers will be aware (or care) of corporate infringements - collective action issues.

Broadly, however, I agree. A democratic government is more likely to be controllable by the people.

Yes.

bastardofmelbourne:
Honestly, it's not a very clear question.

Is the government democratic? Like, actually democratic? Then oppression by corporations is worse, because the policies of a democratic government can be altered by popular will, whereas the policies of a corporation are set through an undemocratic process and can only be altered by executive decision.

But if the government is non-democratic or outright authoritarian, it's difficult to argue that a corporation presents a larger threat for the simple fact that a government has much more power than a corporation does. Corporations are created by law; governments create law. A government not bound by moral, social, or political constraints is much more terrifying than a corporation not bound by government regulation.

Though, to be honest? The line between government and corporation is not as clear-cut as it may seem initially. Once the democratic process is dispensed with, the only difference between a government and a corporation is that one of them has a monopoly on the use of force. If a corporation became sufficiently powerful and/or the government sufficiently weak, then the corporation essentially is the government. At that point, the question is moot.

And yes.

There can be problems at every stage: corporations might not be properly accountable to law enforcement. Law enforcement might not be properly accountable to politicians. Politicians might not be properly accountable to voters. Voters might not be properly informed. Information might not be properly available.

Ultimately, governments and corporations are bodies with some degree of control over resources and power to make decisions. And the decisions of either can be influenced by the other. A properly manipulated population or political situation can give rise to corporations which functionally have control over the government or a government which exercises no control over corporations. Either situation (or both at once) is basically awful.

I would have to say neither. I have never felt oppressed by anyone, and Ive never known anyone who I thought was being oppressed. I think a lot of people are just paranoid, like Alex Jones.

But if I had to pick, I would say government would be worse. Corporations need the peoples support to survive. If they offer bad service, nobody would do business with them. Corporations cant function of everybody hates them. The government doesn't care if everyone hates it. You can have a nation where the government has overwhelming disapproval, but still rules over the people. That happens a lot in dictatorships.

But seriously, both are actively complacit in abusing their authority when given the chance, especially considering that there is a long and detailed history of military and energy sector contracors becoming cozy with authoriterian regimes in order to secure their capital. And let us not forget the United Fruit Co. funded militias and coups which distabilized South America in the 50's and 60's.

Honestly, I prefer corporatism over state capitalism/ authoriterian socialism/ marxism leninism, since corporations arn't usually in-charge of extrenal and internal security and as a result are far less likely to enforce their will, even thought the government would care far more about protecting the properety of those private entities rather than its own citizens, but alas.

But as Saelune said, after a certain point, it becomes rather difficult to distinguish between private and public entities.

Meanwhile,

http://fortune.com/2017/05/24/mark-zuckerberg-disrupt-for-president-pac/
http://www.complex.com/life/2017/04/people-are-convinced-mark-zuckerberg-will-run-for-president

cthulhuspawn82:
If they offer bad service, nobody would do business with them. Corporations cant function of everybody hates them. The government doesn't care if everyone hates it.

Yeah, Theresa May really doesn't mind that everyone hates her government. Donald Trump is unconcerned by his 64% disapproval.

cthulhuspawn82:
You can have a nation where the government has overwhelming disapproval, but still rules over the people. That happens a lot in dictatorships.

Yeah, no corporation has ever survived and flourished despite overwhelming disapproval Goldman Sachs and all companies are fully accountable to their employees and consumers.

image

All hierarchical structures have the potential to be oppressive. Families can be oppressive, corporations can be oppressive, governments can be oppressive, gangs can be oppressive, random people in the street can spontaneously form oppressive hierarchies..

In some ways, government oppression is the worst form of oppression because governments can legally sanction or excuse violence against oppressed groups. However, government is also necessary to protect people from other forms of oppression. If I'm being attacked in the street, I want to know that police will use force if necessary to protect me from harm. On the other hand, I also want to be sure that police won't randomly shoot me if I have the wrong skin colour because as agents of the state they can get away with it. Similarly, I want to know that my government won't allow corporations to poison my drinking water or fire me for discriminatory reasons.

So yeah, the two are both problems, but ultimately they have the same solution, which is to create legal and constitutional protections against oppression by both government and corporations.

Level 7 Dragon:

But seriously, both are actively complacit in abusing their authority when given the chance, especially considering that there is a long and detailed history of military and energy sector contracors becoming cozy with authoriterian regimes in order to secure their capital. And let us not forget the United Fruit Co. funded militias and coups which distabilized South America in the 50's and 60's.

Honestly, I prefer corporatism over state capitalism/ authoriterian socialism/ marxism leninism, since corporations arn't usually in-charge of extrenal and internal security and as a result are far less likely to enforce their will, even thought the government would care far more about protecting the properety of those private entities rather than its own citizens, but alas.

But as Saelune said, after a certain point, it becomes rather difficult to distinguish between private and public entities.

Meanwhile,

http://fortune.com/2017/05/24/mark-zuckerberg-disrupt-for-president-pac/
http://www.complex.com/life/2017/04/people-are-convinced-mark-zuckerberg-will-run-for-president

Z U C K E R B E R G

F A C E B O O K I S T H E N E W B I G B R O T H E R

Currently we place more and more of our lives in the hands of private enterprises. I would think that would make their danger more common.

Oppression is oppression. Why do you need a narrow view?

I think corporation oppression is worse and heres why:

With government opression a person has at least some choice in who the opressor is. Some posts, if not all, can be voted on and laws can be changed withing the system in all systems outside of pure despotism. There is some hope at the very least.

In corporate opression the ones opressed has absolutely no say in the matter and as a result are much worse off with no option to ever reverse it outside of third party (government) intervention. Sadly corporate opression usually means the government is bought and paid for already.

17 yo me.. cyberpunk is awesome
40 yo me.. i dont like living in a cyberpunk world anymore

Honestly...I think corporations are actually more democratic than governments. Voting with your wallet seems more effective...and quicker, than waiting 2-4 years.

Corporations seem to care about civil rights faster than governments, even if it is just to get money from them.

Saelune:
Honestly...I think corporations are actually more democratic than governments. Voting with your wallet seems more effective...and quicker, than waiting 2-4 years.

Corporations seem to care about civil rights faster than governments, even if it is just to get money from them.

...

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/

Corporations are the reason we have two terrible choices. They fund Republicans and tell them: "Great, keep doing what you're doing!" They fund Democrats and tell them: "Please be a bit more like the Republicans, or if not we'll stop funding."

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Honestly...I think corporations are actually more democratic than governments. Voting with your wallet seems more effective...and quicker, than waiting 2-4 years.

Corporations seem to care about civil rights faster than governments, even if it is just to get money from them.

...

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/

Corporations are the reason we have two terrible choices. They fund Republicans and tell them: "Great, keep doing what you're doing!" They fund Democrats and tell them: "Please be a bit more like the Republicans, or if not we'll stop funding."

Im talking the difference between two bad things. Not that you would understand.

Its like whether or not I think being shot or being stabbed is worse. Both suck, and Id prefer neither, but if you're gonna put a gun to my head/knife to my throat, well there is my answer.

I do know that companies like even Walmart are standing up to Trump better than any Republican.

Both

Let's wipe the slate clean and start over

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Honestly...I think corporations are actually more democratic than governments. Voting with your wallet seems more effective...and quicker, than waiting 2-4 years.

Corporations seem to care about civil rights faster than governments, even if it is just to get money from them.

...

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/

Corporations are the reason we have two terrible choices. They fund Republicans and tell them: "Great, keep doing what you're doing!" They fund Democrats and tell them: "Please be a bit more like the Republicans, or if not we'll stop funding."

Im talking the difference between two bad things. Not that you would understand.

Its like whether or not I think being shot or being stabbed is worse. Both suck, and Id prefer neither, but if you're gonna put a gun to my head/knife to my throat, well there is my answer.

I do know that companies like even Walmart are standing up to Trump better than any Republican.

Governments would do better if we put corporations in their place, stopped them from exerting control over our political system.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

...

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/

Corporations are the reason we have two terrible choices. They fund Republicans and tell them: "Great, keep doing what you're doing!" They fund Democrats and tell them: "Please be a bit more like the Republicans, or if not we'll stop funding."

Im talking the difference between two bad things. Not that you would understand.

Its like whether or not I think being shot or being stabbed is worse. Both suck, and Id prefer neither, but if you're gonna put a gun to my head/knife to my throat, well there is my answer.

I do know that companies like even Walmart are standing up to Trump better than any Republican.

Governments would do better if we put corporations in their place, stopped them from exerting control over our political system.

Great. That wasnt the question.

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Saelune:
Snip

Hmmm... You know, these responses are starting to look mechanical like that politico-bot we had in here a while back, the one that made a bunch of topics and posts that might be somewhere in the neighborhood of the topic, but never quite there. How else would it explain not taking input when it's offered en masse?

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Im talking the difference between two bad things. Not that you would understand.

Its like whether or not I think being shot or being stabbed is worse. Both suck, and Id prefer neither, but if you're gonna put a gun to my head/knife to my throat, well there is my answer.

I do know that companies like even Walmart are standing up to Trump better than any Republican.

Governments would do better if we put corporations in their place, stopped them from exerting control over our political system.

Great. That wasnt the question.

If corporate influence is making governments less responsive to the concerns that you raise, then it's pretty relevant to the question.

This is a really shallow question because ultimately its humans oppressing humans (contrary to what hippies say the vast majority of the power is still with the people and not the government or shadowy corporations, thus they carry the bulk of the responsibility, plus the average Joes of the world are still the people willfully forming the foundation for whatevers built on it) but if you put a gun to my head...

Corporations. Governments in the West are by and large just made up of retards who couldn't make it big in the economy, particularly on more local levels. Hardly anyone who is intelligent and quick thinking enough to grab some big influential position in a large corporation or startup of their own will opt to go into politics instead. Plus, more and more its being shown that any power and freedom given to the government can and most definitely will be abused by corporations sooner or later.

And perhaps in a way we should be thankful for that. Lets be really Eurocentric and take the governments of France, Germany and the UK as in example. Over the last 20 years they have been so unimaginative, so devoid of any new ideas and lacking in courage to take even the smallest of risks in the name of innovation, that without corporate influence I am quite sure we'd have been treading water for the last 20 years. Our politicians can't even wrap their heads around smartphones, so imagine for a moment how they would be approaching what is possibly a revolution larger than the industrial one without Google or Boeing or Monsanto telling them how to handle it. Certainly not better than they are now and its already disastrous enough anyway.

inu-kun:
Which is a bigger danger (currently)?

Let's put our commie hats on and turn on the Helicopters. On one hand governments have more power on day to day life and rights of people. On the other hand corporations answer to no one except a small amount of managers and with globalization continuing they have enough power to bully governments to do what they want by withholding financial support to an area.

I'd go with corporations being the bigger danger due to not having any checks or balances by the people.

I'll need more information on the context in which this oppression take place. A dictatorship can be much more destructive than a democracy just like a corporation holding a monopoly in a market of necessity goods can do a lot more damage than a company selling luxury goods in a highly competitive market.

Overall I would state governments can do a lot more damage than corporations. Case in point: when did corporations kill as many people as Hitler, Stalin or Mao ?! The government has the police and army to oppress and kill. A corporation, assuming there still is some kind of rule of law enforced by governments, cannot hire armed thugs to torture and kill people into submission on such a large scale before facing justice.

Corporations don't oppress without will from government. Like Adani basically silting out an entire village of people in India (possibly murdering people if some of their planning internal memos are taken into account) ... a proactive government would, in general, not allow the brazen disregard for public safety be merited any defence. A massively corrupt government that still has funny ideas about a caste system would, however.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here