- Sep 16, 2020
- Reaction score
- Kingdom of Croatia
True, but frankly I think that corporations have the same problem as the voters: they tend not to think beyond the next quartal. Or as we have a saying here in Croatia, "iza mene potop" (which is in fact a translation of the Louis XVI's Après moi, le déluge). Modern world has a very fast living pace, and most of the wealth is literal vaporware - just a code in bank's computer, with people spending other people's money because banks know that most of the money is not used at the same time (and if everybody did decide to withdraw their money at the same time, system would collapse). This leads to very fast transitions and transfers of wealth, and need to keep up with day-to-day developments. But this fast living pace means that nobody has the capacity to consider what will happen even the next year, let alone the next decade or next century - and many if most people wouldn't care anyway, as they have come to care about personal profits only. In the political arena, we have a problem which I have described in the OP - a political class with no stake in long-term prosperity of the nation, living from elections to elections. So it actually makes sense, in such an environment, for corporations to back something that will destroy them long-term if it leads to short-term profit.This is reliant on what are actually fairly specific events to occur, as displayed well by the vast majority of socialist power grabs just imploding the economy altogether instead of granting an existing corporation a monopoly via nationalization. As Reveille implied, the sort of "socialist" that big corporations get behind tends to lead to a failed state and them out of money in the end because the infrastructure and labor market turn to shit, whereas the kind of socialist that lasts with a chance to evolve into a mixed market like China tends to brutally destroy the existing big corporations to make new ones beholden to them.
Just because billionaire corporations are backing a power grab doesn't mean the natural progressions of dictatorship stop applying. The moment it descends to blatant cheating or physical violence, it stops being about money and starts being about naked force, which big corporations actually tend to be quite poor at. Once you start backing the socialist revolt, the determinant of who's in charge becomes a matter of who's best at courting and managing socialist revolutionaries, who are markedly opposed to corporate profits making keeping them in line considerably more difficult.
There is, after all, a reason every major media group suddenly stopped talking about economic class after Occupy Wall Street and started talking about unequal outcomes based on ethnicity and ultra-minority identity groups. Because socialism's been proven a terrible mechanism because the socialists you're trying to appease actively hate you and the desired policy direction is known by precedent to be terrible for lasting profits so your stock market cap will drop out from under you.