• ziggurism@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not following. You’d be ok with risking beheading to overthrow a monarch. But you won’t overthrow a corporate CEO?

    You think corporations don’t exist under monarchy?

    • Domille@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      no, I don’t. They have far more complex structures. Just because you remove a CEO, does not mean the whole company will go away. How many CEOs have been fired and replaced? Plenty. These companies still remain though, corrupting everything around them.

      • megasin1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will say I’m the UK we still have a king that we couldn’t physically overthrow although we could possibly remove them constitutionally if the democracy aligned in that direction. However we do still have amazon here.

        I think the difference between UK and US for workers rights comes from how we treat lobbying differently.

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but the point is that corporations still exist and rule in most monarchies at this very moment. You would just be adding an extra layer of something to overthrow.

    • ScrimbloBimblo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel like it’s more about distribution of responsibility. If you have a king, he’s either a good king and runs things well, or a bad king and runs things poorly. A King’s success is generally measured by the quality of his kingdom, which is at least somewhat tied to the wellbeing of subjects.

      In a corporation, even if you have a comparitively “good” CEO, he’s still answerable to the shareholders, and thus obligated to raise the stock value by any means necessary, a factor which is not necessarily dependent on the wellbeing of his employees.

  • gundog48@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    A company is much easier to crash than a monarch or government. A government will lock you up or kill you for planning to overthrow them.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you need to make a difference in the existence of Amazon. Stop trying to save the world and start trying to save your block.

            Like, maybe call the city and report a pothole or something. Get a low hanging branch trimmed so it doesn’t hit a biker.

            You’re right. Even with the might of 10 people you’d be a mote of dust on Amazon’s windshield. And you don’t have 10 people you have 1.

            Amazon is named after a mighty river. And you’ve got a little beach shovel and and a bucket and you’re asking about how to stop the river.

            The trouble with someone trying to find the biggest machine they can and pilot it, is that they might actually succeed in getting to those controls some day and then because they didn’t work themselves up from small to larger vehicles, they have no idea how to drive it and they crash.

            Doing good works is about more than obtaining power. You also need competence. Like, a software developer is omnipotent in the realm he’s working in. Doesn’t mean that omnipotence actually results in anything valuable being done.

  • knotthatone@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    What makes you think a monarchy would do anything to combat a corpo hellscape? If history’s any indication, they’d probably make all the CEOs lords and turn everybody else into an indentured peasantry.

  • Sylver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Same way you overthrow a king. Without exaggeration or sarcasm, we can’t really discuss those methods civilly, but history can always repeat itself.

    • kakes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the entirety of your experience with monarchies and revolutions is a line in a history textbook, it seems a lot easier and less painful than it is.

  • tooting_lemmy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would be far easier to start a populist movement that reigned in corporations. The problem with revolutions is you never know who’s going to to end up on top at the end. Most likely the new regime will be just as bad as the old. I think what we actually need is more democracy. I like the idea of a democratic referendum that allows the people to force the government into action.

  • IceMan@forum.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Same - monarchy’s flaw is that it’s clear who is in charge and who can be (ultimately) blamed. The same thing is simultaneously it’s advantage - it’s honest. For fans of voting - you can have elected monarchy as was a case with few countries ;)

    • bi_tux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, or do you think, that all those child monarchs in anchient times were actually ruling?