• evlogii@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    I’d prefer no tyranny at all, but if I had to choose, I’d pick the tyranny of corporations because, at least, companies don’t have a monopoly on violence.

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        Already.

        Just off the top of my head, pepsi had one of the largest navies in the world at one point, and both coca-cola and nestle are known for hiring mercenaries to kill and threaten their own workers (union leaders and or striking workers). I don’t doubt that’s the very tiny tip of the corporate violence iceberg (beyond the inherent violence in slave or near slave labour).

        • Harvey656@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          27 days ago

          The Pepsi one was a technicality though wasn’t it? Didn’t they sell the ships off right after acquiring them, and also didn’t have them manned? The coke one is new though (are they owned by nestle? that one wasnt.) Where in the world is that happening at?

    • BMTea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Tyrrany of corporations means that the state uses its monopoly on violence at the behest of the corporations though.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      They don’t though. Private security, PMCs, and private prisons all operate here.

      Hell, even the Pinkertons still quietly exist, and they specifically provide security and investigation services for corporations and are still used to investigate and intimidate union leaders.