The Reckless Ben/Bricks & Minifigs fight shows bad-faith accusations becoming access to private Google data and that capital ~of any size~ is given preferential treatment.
Great article. It begs the question, is it just the legal status as a corporation that triggers this presumption of protection from the state or do ownership aesthetics matter as well or more? Presumably, Reckless Ben is legally incorporated as well. Appearing like an individual, incorporated or not, seems to garner prejudice from the system. This prejudice reinforces the idea that the ruling ideology of the capitalist class, neo-liberalism, in which our highest priority is professed to be commodified self identity, works in their favor to keep us oppressed and uncompetitive. The people at large need to incorporate I suppose.
It's probably not just legal status, because as you pointed out here, legal status is detached from even the aesthetic. I'd go further, though, as legal status doesn't necessarily preclude actual capital. Bricks & Minifigs, while not Chevron, is an international company whose simple search reveals it owns a sizable amount of capital. The aesthetic is likely part of it, and so is the fact that they have 300+ locations and something like over 2,000 employees.
I think the aesthetic absolutely does point an observer toward understanding that Reckless Ben, if he even has employees, likely doesn't have many. That is to say, if he even is in the capitalist class (and I don't mean legally incorporated in some way, but rather if he is socializing labor and retaining the product of that labor individually), he is very obviously petit.
For sure. Visible assets and reach, real or not matters the most. I would assume even a bankrupt company with legacy branding and zero remaining stores/locations would still be given preferential treatment over an entity like Reckless Ben.
What stops the masses from incorporating themselves and transferring all their assets into that corporation to battle the capitalists?
Great article. It begs the question, is it just the legal status as a corporation that triggers this presumption of protection from the state or do ownership aesthetics matter as well or more? Presumably, Reckless Ben is legally incorporated as well. Appearing like an individual, incorporated or not, seems to garner prejudice from the system. This prejudice reinforces the idea that the ruling ideology of the capitalist class, neo-liberalism, in which our highest priority is professed to be commodified self identity, works in their favor to keep us oppressed and uncompetitive. The people at large need to incorporate I suppose.
It's probably not just legal status, because as you pointed out here, legal status is detached from even the aesthetic. I'd go further, though, as legal status doesn't necessarily preclude actual capital. Bricks & Minifigs, while not Chevron, is an international company whose simple search reveals it owns a sizable amount of capital. The aesthetic is likely part of it, and so is the fact that they have 300+ locations and something like over 2,000 employees.
I think the aesthetic absolutely does point an observer toward understanding that Reckless Ben, if he even has employees, likely doesn't have many. That is to say, if he even is in the capitalist class (and I don't mean legally incorporated in some way, but rather if he is socializing labor and retaining the product of that labor individually), he is very obviously petit.
Also thank you!
For sure. Visible assets and reach, real or not matters the most. I would assume even a bankrupt company with legacy branding and zero remaining stores/locations would still be given preferential treatment over an entity like Reckless Ben.
What stops the masses from incorporating themselves and transferring all their assets into that corporation to battle the capitalists?
I'd wager they'd find a new distinction lol
Haha, probably feudal-fascism. Centralized control of peasants by the lords.
So what is the solution?????
https://petercoffin.substack.com/p/i-dont-believe-in-solutions-i-believe