> It's too abstracted from externalities - from slash and burn asset sweating, to environmental damage to abusive employment practices offshored or put at arms length through contractors
None of this is intrinsic to corporations, and all of it can be legislated away without changing what it means to be a "corporation". This is just thinly-veiled advocacy for communism.
Hard disagree - communism and under-regulated financialised free-market capitalism are not the only alternatives available. Numerous potential political and economic systems, and combinations of those systems have and will likely exist in the future. There's literally nothing inevitable about the particular mixture of state backed shareholder corporate structures that currently hold sway.
The international order as it stands today radically differ in substance and practice to the corporate, legal, tax and intellectual property laws of even a half century ago. Although of course the idea of a corporation dates back at least to the sixteenth century - when they were explicitly created as vehicles of colonization - East India Company, Virginia Company etc.
I'd go so far as to suggest we literally cannot continue as a functioning civilisation under the current international order. We likely agree on one point though, we're more likely to fail as a society than change it without violence.
