mercedo's Journal: State and Corporation

Through modernisation a state appeared to be the only absolute power in the 19th century, and kept on being called what is 'public'. Multinational corporations, on the other hands appeared to be super powers in the late 20th century, but still remained to be 'private'. Recent scotus ruling on Kelo affairs might enable multinational corporations to claim public status what only a state used to exercise.

True, and this is a great danger

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Since the State has a duty to it's citizens- but a mega-corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders. The people the megacorporation hurts is a different set of people than those who own it- unlike the state. For the State, this sets up a conflict of interest that prevents the worst abuses of power- but for a corporation, as long as it is profitable in the short term, there is no other conflict of interst.

Re:True, and this is a great danger

[mercedo]

Since the State has a duty to it's citizens- but a mega-corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders

The State only has a duty to its taxpayers primarily but also has a duty to those who don't afford to pay taxes or just refuse to pay taxes, the State cannot prevent us from using state facilities state owned organisations only because we don't pay tax. That's where the meaning of 'public' lies. 'public' means or suggests 'everyone' can use or is beneficial from it.

On the other hands, a mega corporati

Re:True, and this is a great danger

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, the larger the megacorp gets, the more danger there is that they will forget about the general public in search of what is profitable only. The reason is obvious: Market Share and Competition are inversely porportional- the more market share a corporation has, the less competition the corporation has. And thus, the fewer choices the consumer has. The classic case of this is Wal*Mart in the 1990s- as they took market share in new towns, smaller competitors such as K-Mart and downtown shops clos

Re:True, and this is a great danger

[mercedo]

Through the formation of modern capitalism, kinds of oligarchy was inevitable, it was true mega corporations ate what was supposed to be a share of smaller competitors. They survived because they always thought about what the general public really wanted instead of thinking about profit only.

Let me give you an example. About twenty years ago, still Kroger was dominant in retailors industry, almost all big retailors were seeking for their premises in a city centre or near site to main commercial district, t

Re:True, and this is a great danger

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But- as the old phrase from the Highlander movies go- in the end there can be only one. Oligarchies are merely a stage- and REAL capitalism prevents them from ever starting. Oligarchies are just as anti-capitalist as monopolies are- and as the Soviet-style communism was. It's not a good thing to have the majority of everything owned by the few- for the greatest good, you want many hundreds of corporations- maximum competition.