this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
241 points (96.2% liked)

Anti-Corporate Movement

799 readers
371 users here now

This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.

Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.

Current topics this includes but is not limited to:

Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.

Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.

But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.

But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.

But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.

But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

https://www.tiktok.com/@detroit75kitchen/video/7506253677754060078

Lmk if the video doesn't work. Trying a different host.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ever heard of "sweat equity?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity

People could move in, improve the buildings with hard work instead of paying rent, and then you'd have housed people and given them valuable skills.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes I have heard of that. It didn't apply here. They would not be legally habitable for those purposes UNTIL those changes are made. The buildings are not currently designed for that purpose. We have these housing codes for a reason.

There's an order things need to be done

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A community can allow people who are rehabbing a building to live on site while improvements are being made.

A homeless person would much rather live in a building without water and power then have to sleep in an open park, or even a shelter where they are cohabiting with mentally ill folk.

Since we'd be changing laws to let people live there in the first place, making other changes would be a minor consideration.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, they could. Then a fire happens, and that community starts pointing fingers at how all these people died. Surely, someone should have prevented that...

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.

What's keeping people from having fire extinguishers on hand? Why would they need open fires in the first place?

Might as well bring in a Godzilla attack.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who the fuck said anything about open fires?

Do you not understand why we have fire codes for buildings, residential or otherwise?

Things catch fire. It happens. It's even more likely if major renovations are occurring, between flammable paint fumes, potentially exposed wiring, power tools strewn around...

Actually try to think through your own proposals for a second before vomiting them into the universe.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Actually try to think through your own proposals for a second before vomiting them into the universe.

Literally laughing out loud when I read that.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Because you know you won't do that?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dude. How bad are your literacy skills?

This entire conversation has been about using these houses, instead of as single residence, but multi-"family" housing. They are move in ready AS SINGLE RESIDENCES, NOT the things we've been talking about this entire time. Holy shit, how dumb are you?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've never seen anyone as desperate as you in my life.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You've realized I was right and have now attempted to distract from your obvious mess up. Bye

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

Of course! Because there's no way I could be laughing at you. Everyone admires and respects you and considers you a shining beacon of rationality!

/s