The rise of Corporatism and its effects on human society

[tcr]

So this is something that has been bothering me a lot. So I recently read this article about the prolific water supply company "Nestle" overusing local towns water supplies, eventually drying them up to sell its substantial quantities of bottled water under various psuedonyms (the bottle in this instance is a brand called "Vittel"). Now whether you agree with Nestle or not is irrelevant, I personally made the decision to vote with my wallet and attempt to get water elsewhere, boycott if you will. However then I fell into this conundrum: at what point is boycotting extreme globalist companies like Nestle useless? For example here's a list of brands that Nestle currently owns, operating in about 80 different countries around the world. Another alternative, the Coca-Cola Company, has constantly been under fire for fraud and unethical advertising and practices, such as passing its Vitamin Water off as a healthy, "flavorful" alternative to regular water, despite it having a whopping 33 grams of sugar in it, almost as much as Coke's own 39. In other countries such as Australia, ad efforts have tried to dispel the "myth" that Coca-Cola makes you fat or can fuck up your teeth. That's just two of the companies, however flawed, that seem to control the entire food industry in most developed countries. What can be done about that to curb unethical practices that are caused by "rampant capitalism" (I say this with quotes because I don't want to be just labelled as a tankie but I want to point out the flaws in rampant capitalism, otherwise "crony capitalism," where profit is everything). In theory, one could just not buy the products, "speak with your wallet," but when they control nigh the entire food supply what can a person even do? Growing your own food is a hassle that cannot be expected of a majority of the general population due to how advanced society has become, there just simply isn't time to revert back to a predominantly agricultural society.

That's just the food industry too. Money in politics is nothing strange anymore and many corporations have vested interests in continuing lobbying for their own profit-driven self interests. Ever since acts like Citizens United and the repeal of Glass-Steagal, money has been extraordinarily influential in politics. Similarly, media is also controlled by a handful of shadow puppet companies. At what point are our food companies not controlled by corporations whos only vested interest is not the wellbeing of society as a whole but the exploitation and accumulation of material gains? At what point is the information we consume from these shadow media not designed to spew a particular agenda? At the risk of sounding like some r/conspiracy lurker are we just doomed to live under this "new world order" rule forever? I don't believe that these corporations can be broken up due to the amount of flexing power they have in most legislatures, and its useless to attempt to boycott their products in my opinion. What then can be done to address this rising issue of the lack of autonomy?

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

I've got no commentary but here is a helpful graphic to add to your list of brands.

Hide

 

[AM]

It’s useless. You can keep fooling yourselves into making choices that you believe go against the grain of corporations but somewhere in that same corporate entity a personnel will catch on and capitilize on what that dollar you’re spending is going to and make sure it’s somehow going into their wallet. The picture above is one example of proof for that, and thats just food items.

 

[Martin]

I’d say buy store own-brands instead of branded goods, but the giant businesses just repackage their products and sell them to own-brands anyway so it’s not exactly a perfect solution.

Honestly I think if you actually want to try and boycott these businesses you have to change the way that you source your food and drink; this can mean: growing your fruit and veg on an allotment; sourcing meat/fruit/veg from independent suppliers at things like farmer’s markets; drinking tap water instead of bottled water;* cutting down on consumption of things like chocolate/candy and imported goods; cutting out chain-based fast food consumption etc. But with that all said and done there is only really so much you can do, because at some point you are going to come across a situation where you *need* to buy a product that can only be sourced from these businesses, so at most all you can do is cut down on how much of your cash stream is going into their pockets.

*This also has the benefit of not giving you kidney stones (unlike some mineral waters), costing substantially less money, and not producing fucking pointless plastic waste

 

[A_clueless_homo]

You could always try copious governmental regulations that inevitably end up creating more monopolies than they break up, or, tell the government to stop subsidizing specific companies and giving them unfair advantages over everyone else. On top of that, “speaking with your wallet” is nice, but organizing demonstrations can help with sending a message that what a company does is unacceptable. Remember: “crony capitalism” can be exploited like anything else. Also, if all else fails, industrial sabotage can be a last resort

 

[Celticpride]

It's just a trend towards horizontal integration. It's smart business really. Why would Coke just sell a certain type of soda when they could sell vitamin water, sports drinks, and bottled water? For them it reaches different customer segments. Economies of scale and industry knowledge matter as well. An organic drink can't produce at an efficient scale but when acquired by Coke the product gains those abilities to expand. That's not to say unethical marketing or anything is ok but most of the corporatization is literally just efficiency and manufacturing and shipping at scale.

For more differentiated products, a more diversified portfolio allows a business to change with the market and become more resilient to downturns in specific segments. GE is an example of this, they used to own NBC iirc, and have expanded into financial services, software development, healthcare and numerous other industries over the years. If GE just stayed a power generation company they wouldn't be nearly as successful today.

This isn't to say that I'm comfortable with monopolies, large corps, or money in politics. Just the US is lightly regulated, and investing in lobbyists and horizontal integration are very profitable business strategies. The government should be acting as a check to this kind of profit-seeking, and when it doesn't, that's a failure on Washington not on the businesses themselves. If you're working in a business and not trying to maximize your profit, you're gonna get passed and no amount of moral high ground is going to change that. In terms of regulations, there's two paths realistically: you can break up the monopolies into smaller subsidiaries (many degrees more difficult than it sounds), or you can leave the entities be and police their marketing and such, as well as the pricing of certain goods that are more essential to people. I do think the OP is a bit loaded, as corporate conglomerates and money in politics are really two separate issues.

 

[tcr]

I’d say buy store own-brands instead of branded goods, but the giant businesses just repackage their products and sell them to own-brands anyway so it’s not exactly a perfect solution.

Honestly I think if you actually want to try and boycott these businesses you have to change the way that you source your food and drink; this can mean: growing your fruit and veg on an allotment; sourcing meat/fruit/veg from independent suppliers at things like farmer’s markets; drinking tap water instead of bottled water;* cutting down on consumption of things like chocolate/candy and imported goods; cutting out chain-based fast food consumption etc. But with that all said and done there is only really so much you can do, because at some point you are going to come across a situation where you *need* to buy a product that can only be sourced from these businesses, so at most all you can do is cut down on how much of your cash stream is going into their pockets.

*This also has the benefit of not giving you kidney stones (unlike some mineral waters), costing substantially less money, and not producing fucking pointless plastic waste

what happens when the tap water itself is tainted though? for example there's the ubiquitous Flint, Michigan water situation but it's not entirely limited to that one city, with huge cities like Chicago containing tap water lines that are 70% lead and for several other cities to be filled with toxic pollutants that end up causing cancer or some other biological problem. Hell according to this info site my own city has apparantly 12 different toxicological byproducts in it that cause various issues ranging from links to cancer to thyroid problems. I guess I could always get a filter which would solve at least the water issue but it still begs the question of what can be worldwide, since corporations that control the water supply often end up drying up the water supply in less-fortunate areas, or contaminating it with their anti-environmental practices. I already cook my own food so I'm not worried about buying into their processed goods or the chocolate / candy products or fast food consumption, but I think it's only a matter of time before those same corporations start dipping into the "natural" food market and buying up stock in dairy, meat, and produce suppliers. For all I know they already do and have controlling shares, I'll admit I'm not that well-versed in shareholding and economics of trading stocks.

You could always try copious governmental regulations that inevitably end up creating more monopolies than they break up, or, tell the government to stop subsidizing specific companies and giving them unfair advantages over everyone else. On top of that, “speaking with your wallet” is nice, but organizing demonstrations can help with sending a message that what a company does is unacceptable. Remember: “crony capitalism” can be exploited like anything else. Also, if all else fails, industrial sabotage can be a last resort

yeah I guess this could also theoretically work but it's not like only one side of the chessboard of politics is in bed with this corporatocracy. at this point I feel like my voice just doesn't matter. I can vote in a candidate that supports environmental regulations all I like but to disrupt the sort of leverage those companies have over the political body would take an unrealistic and potentially unethical purge of current representation. Not like only the republicans are the ones who sell out. I don't know if currently trust-busting can be done in today's climate, as these huge corporations are bigger than they ever were when Roosevelt did it. Hell some of the companies have more global influence and power I'd wager than about 60% of Europe (speculation).

I don't recommend industrial sabotage as some sort of armed revolution to take back natural resources seems out of the question

It's just a trend towards horizontal integration. It's smart business really. Why would Coke just sell a certain type of soda when they could sell vitamin water, sports drinks, and bottled water? For them it reaches different customer segments. Economies of scale and industry knowledge matter as well. An organic drink can't produce at an efficient scale but when acquired by Coke the product gains those abilities to expand. That's not to say unethical marketing or anything is ok but most of the corporatization is literally just efficiency and manufacturing and shipping at scale.

For more differentiated products, a more diversified portfolio allows a business to change with the market and become more resilient to downturns in specific segments. GE is an example of this, they used to own NBC iirc, and have expanded into financial services, software development, healthcare and numerous other industries over the years. If GE just stayed a power generation company they wouldn't be nearly as successful today.

This isn't to say that I'm comfortable with monopolies, large corps, or money in politics. Just the US is lightly regulated, and investing in lobbyists and horizontal integration are very profitable business strategies. The government should be acting as a check to this kind of profit-seeking, and when it doesn't, that's a failure on Washington not on the businesses themselves. If you're working in a business and not trying to maximize your profit, you're gonna get passed and no amount of moral high ground is going to change that. In terms of regulations, there's two paths realistically: you can break up the monopolies into smaller subsidiaries (many degrees more difficult than it sounds), or you can leave the entities be and police their marketing and such, as well as the pricing of certain goods that are more essential to people. I do think the OP is a bit loaded, as corporate conglomerates and money in politics are really two separate issues.

yeah i totally understand why the businesses do what they do, they are maximizing profits by expanding into previously unexplored sectors and geniusly and quietly gathering a market from all sorts of different products. I totally get the reasoning behind what they do. The question is can anything really be done? The question now, I propose, is what do consumers do economically when the achievements of the monopolies overpower the free hand of the market? Consumers should have all the power in controlling these corporations but all that power is consolidated at the top and through strategic marketing consumers have been, for lack of a better phrase, backed into a corner. It's not enough to just not buy something, and even trivial stuff like boycotting products that advertise on unsavory televisions (like Ingraham or Hannity's boycotts) no longer seem to have an effect as there is always going to be another product that society will unknowingly contribute to. Where are the checks? As you said yourself breaking up monopolies is a difficult task to accomplish, as it would require a clean purge of otherwise "compromised" individuals in legislature, probably around the globe. Upping prices on controversial luxury items works in theory but there are many inelastic goods that consumers have to purchase anyway, such as water or toilet paper.

I don't think the two are seperate issues at all, corporations like Coca-Cola and Pepsico already lobby for killing health care laws and I would say it's not that much a stretch to assume that most globalist companies like Nestle or Disney or whatever else have the ears of key figures in their respective branches of government. While yes, the topic of dark money and intensive, exorbitant spending by individuals to Congress is a much different, meatier topic I don't think it's accurate to say that corporate congolomerates and money in politics cannot be discussed as a joint issue. In a late stage capitalist society corporations hold tremendous power in government compared to your average joe, and that's only compounded globally.

The only solutions I can really think of that aren't legislature based is just wait for the dudes in charge, the "Rothschilds" and other influential "puppetmasters" to die off or to incite armed rebellion. neither of which are ideal solutions. i feel very worried for my future :(

 

[Martin]

what happens when the tap water itself is tainted though? for example there's the ubiquitous Flint, Michigan water situation but it's not entirely limited to that one city, with huge cities like Chicago containing tap water lines that are 70% lead and for several other cities to be filled with toxic pollutants that end up causing cancer or some other biological problem. Hell according to this info site my own city has apparantly 12 different toxicological byproducts in it that cause various issues ranging from links to cancer to thyroid problems. I guess I could always get a filter which would solve at least the water issue but it still begs the question of what can be worldwide, since corporations that control the water supply often end up drying up the water supply in less-fortunate areas, or contaminating it with their anti-environmental practices. I already cook my own food so I'm not worried about buying into their processed goods or the chocolate / candy products or fast food consumption, but I think it's only a matter of time before those same corporations start dipping into the "natural" food market and buying up stock in dairy, meat, and produce suppliers. For all I know they already do and have controlling shares, I'll admit I'm not that well-versed in shareholding and economics of trading stocks.

That’s a different matter; obviously if your local tap water is undrinkable then you have an excuse to drink bottled water. It’s just that I made the post under the assumption of clean running water, mostly because from what I’ve seen a lot of americans who have access to clean running water still choose to drink bottled for some reason. More university-aged brits are doing this nowadays too, which is pretty stupid mostly because AFAIK there isn’t anywhere left in Britain that has this issue.

As for natural food, farmers markets should always be safe; they’re independently run and are probably the only places left that big corporations can’t realistically get their greasy fingers over just due to the way they function.

 

[termi]

What then can be done to address this rising issue of the lack of autonomy?

Armed revolution. It is exactly as you see it: your consumer choice doesn't matter, your vote doesn't matter. Even if you manage to completely avoid products made by horrible multinationals, you're one in a million. Most people are blissfully ignorant of all the things you've been researching and/or don't really give a shit. Even if you don't vote for one of the two major American political parties, both of which have a vested interest in keeping multinationals growing, most people will. As long as we cling on to capitalism and try to change it from within, nothing will really change because the inherent logic of capitalism prevents it. The only hope one can have is global revolution. Can't say the chances of a successful global revolution are particularly great, but frankly, there is no alternative.

 

[orch]

Invest into decentralized entities with transparent data so that they are more accountable to customers' choices.

 

[Pyritie]

come to europe lol bribery isn't legal here

 

[GatoDelFuego]

yeah i totally understand why the businesses do what they do, they are maximizing profits by expanding into previously unexplored sectors and geniusly and quietly gathering a market from all sorts of different products. I totally get the reasoning behind what they do. The question is can anything really be done? The question now, I propose, is what do consumers do economically when the achievements of the monopolies overpower the free hand of the market? Consumers should have all the power in controlling these corporations but all that power is consolidated at the top and through strategic marketing consumers have been, for lack of a better phrase, backed into a corner.

The reason that "this is how capitalism work" is a usual response to queries like these is because it's basically a fundamental truth. Given enough time, businesses will consolidate. You can support some kind of local brand, but whether it takes 10 years or 100 the fact that economies of scale exist will drive any smaller business out through their margins.

The only way to "break" a monopoly as you say is by the "free hand of the market", but the market is what MADE these monopolies/triopolies. Most people really don't care about the "shocking truth" that all the food supply is controlled by a small percent of the world. You can be a rebel and go against the grain or even start an armed rebellion, but who is going to be with you? The populace has already made the choice.


BTW if you wanna get really crazy, look into your tap water website, owned by the Environmental Working Group, which gets a kickback on the water filters they link after showing how poor your water supply is.

 

[vonFiedler]

The large majority of people's lives aren't good enough to not warrant an armed rebellion, but too good for it to be worth the effort.

 

[wehraboonightmare]

You have to think relatively. You can complain about le ebil corporations all you want but the fact of the matter is that life in post-industrial society is amazing. Someone in the lower class is living better in 2018 than the 1% in 1900. Western countries generally don't even track death by starvation anymore since it's so rare. It's easy to criticize the current system but it's a lot harder to find an alternative that's better. You could make the argument for the European style mixed economy but that's an argument I don't feel like typing out.

I do believe that bare neccessities like water should be publically owned but that's just me.

Armed revolution. It is exactly as you see it: your consumer choice doesn't matter, your vote doesn't matter. Even if you manage to completely avoid products made by horrible multinationals, you're one in a million. Most people are blissfully ignorant of all the things you've been researching and/or don't really give a shit. Even if you don't vote for one of the two major American political parties, both of which have a vested interest in keeping multinationals growing, most people will. As long as we cling on to capitalism and try to change it from within, nothing will really change because the inherent logic of capitalism prevents it. The only hope one can have is global revolution. Can't say the chances of a successful global revolution are particularly great, but frankly, there is no alternative.

Glad to see mods are doing their best to make sure political extremism and calls for classicide are not propagated on their site

 

[A_clueless_homo]

Armed revolution. It is exactly as you see it: your consumer choice doesn't matter, your vote doesn't matter. Even if you manage to completely avoid products made by horrible multinationals, you're one in a million. Most people are blissfully ignorant of all the things you've been researching and/or don't really give a shit. Even if you don't vote for one of the two major American political parties, both of which have a vested interest in keeping multinationals growing, most people will. As long as we cling on to capitalism and try to change it from within, nothing will really change because the inherent logic of capitalism prevents it. The only hope one can have is global revolution. Can't say the chances of a successful global revolution are particularly great, but frankly, there is no alternative.

You commies are insane. Your “global revolution” will never happen. Your very ideology is unattainable. How many more people have to die before you realize this? Face it: your beliefs are doomed to failure, just like the nazis you so hate are. Life is better without a large government, like it or not statist

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Glad to see mods are doing their best to make sure political extremism and calls for classicide are not propagated on their site

tfw it's illegal to be a political extremist

 

[A_clueless_homo]

tfw it's illegal to be a political extremist

Oh please. If it was a right wing extremist arguing for fascism he would have been gone already

 

[Demoness]

Considering we have people on this site who are pretty close to flat out sayig they want that, and they aren't banned, or even reprimedned at all...

Hell, i'm pretty sure if i just coded the language a bit, I could easily make a post about how fascism would be amazing due to it letting me kill all those "degenerates", and the mods wouldn't even delete it out of fear of actually taking a hard stance on it (or not even notice it)

 

[Blazade]

Discussing corporatism and issues with institutions =\= hating rich people and calling for classicide.

Saying there might be no peaceful way to change an institution when asked if there might be one =\= calling for violence, promoting extremist views, or recruiting for an armed revolution.

 

[vonFiedler]

Oh please. If it was a right wing extremist arguing for fascism he would have been gone already

Just arguing for fascism for fascism's sake? Sounds pretty benign to me.

Arguing for fascism because you want minorities kept in their place? The kind of discussions we actually see? Yeah they be gone

 

[A_clueless_homo]

Just arguing for fascism for fascism's sake? Sounds pretty benign to me.

Arguing for fascism because you want minorities kept in their place? The kind of discussions we actually see? Yeah they be gone

While you make a decent point, I find it hard to believe that spouting Mussolini propaganda (which isn’t minority hate driven as far as I know) would be OK with this site

 

[GatoDelFuego]

While you make a decent point, I find it hard to believe that spouting Mussolini propaganda (which isn’t minority hate driven as far as I know) would be OK with this site

Either way it's got nothing to do with the actual point of this thread. If people have got some shocking evidence about how biased we are, feel free to let us know. For now, let's not derail the thread any more.