579
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

~~Take this with a grain of salt because I can't think of the proper search terms to verify what I think I remember reading:~~

Once upon a time corporations couldn't be created unless they proved a benefit to society. We really need to go back to that...

Edit: with more time I found something.

"In the United States, the first important industrial corporation seems to have been the Boston Manufacturing Co., which was founded in 1813.

Experimental in nature and spaced out in time, these early ventures grew mostly independent of one another (the article mentioned older companies from around the world that I left out) But they had one thing in common: even as for-profit ventures, they were explicitly required to serve the common good.

For the first companies, the privilege of incorporation, often via royal charter, was granted selectively to facilitate activities that contributed to the population’s welfare, such as the construction of roads, canals, hospitals and schools. Allowing shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. Companies were deeply interwoven within the country’s or town’s social fabric, and were meant to contribute to its collective prosperity"

Source (I know, it's not a source I'd use for a college paper): https://qz.com/work/1188731/the-idea-that-companies-should-benefit-society-is-as-old-as-capitalism

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I mean, the earliest corporations were colonial expeditions, so it would depend on your definition of "benefit to society" to say if that was really a good thing.

[-] applepie@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

Well at leads "youur country's" peasants benefited some how... We can't even get that from these parasites

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

It was good at the time because it was an improvement from the feudal system that basically said the king owns everything and allows subordinates to manage things for him with more layers down to serfs who were bound to the land they lived on. The people benefited because initially ownership spread out and different owners would compete with each other to attract workers or renters.

At this point, the issue is that things are getting consolidated and looking more and more like the feudal system, only with corporations at the top owning most assets instead of kings (which also creates a layer of indirection obscuring the true owners behind the corporations, other than some of the more attention seeking ones like Musk, Gates, or Bezos).

The exploitation of the colonized people and stealing their resources acted as a multiplier to this. Supply increased, so prices decreased for demand to meet the new supply.

this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
579 points (98.5% liked)

Games

16800 readers
536 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS