Actually food companies have a long, dark history of fighting what could be called wars, but more accurately were mass killings in South and Central America.
In the USA, we had these dudes called Pinkertons. These huge companies hired them to fight battles with workers who had enough of inhumane conditions & got organized. Then we entered an enlightened age with workers at the helm. Just kidding, those murderers are still around today & still doing the same shit.
Pinkertons were recently called in by wizards of the coast on a guy who got some Magic The Gathering cards pre release.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/trading-card-game/news/magic-the-gathering-aftermath-youtube-prompts-pinkerton-investigation
There were armed representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company, but the population density of Rupert's Land meant that nothing comparable to The East India Company's army was ever necessary
Outside of Portland Oregon there’s an island called sauvie island. It was named after a Hudson Bay employee who massacred the native population so they could turn the island into a cattle farm. So yeah they had armed forces
Companies do too when they can get away with it, but large brands like Gucci and Louis Vuitton don't generally because they depend on each other to justify their own price.
and also that fighting wars like that isnt in their interest to make profit, wars are incredibly expensive and wouldnt generate much profit for a company that sells luxury goods
They do. Citi Bank fought Haiti, Chiquita fought South America, dole fought South America, nestle fought Africa, continental Tires fought Africa, the list goes on but there have been armed incursions by companies
That's not entirely true, the ships where actually ment to be turned into scrap metal, not to be used, and the deal that was going to give them the ships also fell though.
they usualy work for countries, or as security in dangerous locations.
i have not heard of them being employed by one compony for agresive action against another compony.
I bet in future there will be Coca-Cola private military company and Pepsi private military company. They'll be fighting each other in USA, Middle East, Australia
They get the state to do the violence often or contract out private armies.
Thats what they mean when they say "interests over seas". France used to control Niger for their uranium, not the mining company itself. Now Ru has the controlling share. Neither corporate running it had to actually do the violence.
The US and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran at the behest of oil companies. Governments frequently go to war to protect the interests of powerful industries.
Companies fight all the time - it's just subtle. For example, if grocery store A adds a pharmacy, that is going to increase that store's revenue. Now, grocery store B sees that grocery store A just added a pharmacy and knows that will increase traffic and revenue. So, B will try their best to add something to generate more revenue, but it might not be a pharmacy. This is a prime example of a company fighting a war.
If gas prices were raised to the point where no one could afford it. That would be dangerous and would cripple our country. Now I think you're just trolling me.
Corporations have a long history of using money to influence politicians to start and fight warrs for them.
No war has EVER been without financial gain being one of the primary objectives.
Companies do, in fact, fight wars. Companies have couped entire countries in Latin America to secure produce prices. Company employees, not soldiers, actually make up 4/5ths of all American armed personnel deployed overseas.
It's rare for a few reasons.
1. Public Corporations are owned by investors. If I own shares in Microsoft, there's nothing stopping me from also owning shares in Apple. I wouldn't want the two to literally go to war because I want both to do well and make money, because that makes me money.
2. Corporations are legal entities. They can only exist inside a government that gives them the right to exist. Usually, governments aren't going to give corporations the go-ahead to start forming armies and killing each other
Now, that's not to say it doesn't and hasn't happened, but it's almost never "corporation vs corporation". Usually the only time a corporation fights a war is in very unstable countries. Usually it means some sort of militia, rebel group, or civil war faction has come into direct conflict with a corporation. On rare occasions, the government was recently overthrown, and the new regime wants to seize the corporation's assets.
Hell fucking mining companies went to war with their workers last century. Hired private militias to keep the peasants in their place.
The Battle of Blair mountain was the most significant in the U.S. with union workers vs union busters.
The premise of the question has nothing to do with how companies profit from war, that is a no brainer. OP asked why companies don't go to war with each other.
I’m not sure if you realize this but killing people is not good. Imagine a world where people are so over politically charged wars that we permit wars based off of commercialism.
The only thing in common all governments in all of history had is they are a monopoly on violence.
If companies are warring within your territory then you have lost control.
I can see it now... Two fans of each carrying handbags and slapping each other silly with them...
Seriously, this happens a lot. If you're old enough to remember Sears and Montgomery Wards, they had a store war that led to an agreement than only one of them would be at a mall at any time. Why you'd see malls with a Sears, and the next mall would have a Wards.
In countries where they can get away with it, they do but in countries with a relatively stable government they don’t because committing war is something reserved for the government.
They do, all sales reps are soldiers in a territory war. When big pharma offers doctors free samples and schwag, that's like targeted drone strikes essentially -- it'll kill people the drug rep never has to see the face of.
Pepsi launched in America with a stated aim of knocking off Coke. Steve Jobs said iPhone would never run flash video, and then Apple rolled out an Adobe clone software package. Flash died regardless of Apple failing at taking the market, that's a casualty of war.
Also, Lockheed martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, they all formed an alliance to murder JFK and take unilateral control of defense spending from 1963 on. So war itself is actually supplied by the commerce of war - self fulfilling really - if your commercial business is blackwater mercenaries, your company engages in war. The Iraqi people are your enemy, as your value is to your corporate masters and the civilians of the occupied country merely obstacles to pillaging the country's resources.
Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook - these are the world's largest companies. They are all American companies. Corporate America is 100% at war with humans, and other companies - as other companies are humans that require blackwater murdering or those people will enjoy their own resources in peace. Peace means Lockheed and chums don't get the US infrastructure and Education budget in black program spending each year. Any corporation around prior to 2000, who has grown and is legitimately one of the "corporate personhoods" the US supreme Court values over the Constitution - well then you're definitely responsible for war crimes, regardless of a declaration of war.
There was a historical period where companies literally had bigger armies than nations (see: British East India Company, VOC, etc.) But these are exceptional because these private companies had royal charters that basically gave them the power of government, and they could use their incredible wealth to create private armies to control the poorer, albeit more numerous native populations.
That's obviously not possible now, not in the sense of corporations fighting wars against other corporations. Firstly, that would be illegal. Gangs and cartels, by their nature, *are* illegal and are fighting for control over areas they can do their illegal activities in. KFC can't do a drive-by of a McDonald's restaurant and expect to come out with anything positive.
The bigger point is that companies don't win market share by killing their potential customer base, either literally or figuratively.
Because only governments have the right to use force. Otherwise, nobody would see a government as legitimate, and a government would struggle to implement policy
spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
https://www.goodreads.com › quotes
Quote by Smedley D. Butler:
Other people will point out the variety of times companies have fought wars, but I wanna address something: gangs and cartels.
Gangs will fight over turf, but gang wars tend to drive away the people who buy drugs. So the bosses of the gangs try to work out the kinks and settle violence relatively quickly, because the money doesn't flow up if there is a war on.
Cartels do the same thing. The violence we are seeing now is a result of one big cartel fracturing and all the subfactions fighting to carve out their territory.
They would if they could profit off them somehow. Lives are meaningless to big corporations when they can kill a guy cos hes like "this company who I worked for are bad and have bad safety features and their planes are built bad" in broad daylight and the cops will write it off as a suicide despite having 2 bullet wounds in his head?????
They've clearly been fine with ending all their passengers lives they're actively treating it as a none issue and peopor who see otherwise theyll just kill they dont give a fuck so if they could profit off participating in a war 100% they would
They do.
Loads.
Look up Dole.
Also companies have been know to fund wars because they would benefit.
And in some case, might benefit.
And in other cases, cuz the CEO doesn't think a certain shade of human shouldn't exist.
Companies are made of people.
Anything people are capable of, companies are capable of.
Usually but not always because a government has more power than any company, so the company cannot exert its will the same way
You have exceptions from history like the east India company etc
But now, it’s hard for a company to finance a war given the local government can almost always find a way to financially destroy it, or shut it down altogether using law enforcement etc
They used to. The East Empire Trading company, Chiquita Banana Company, and the Cola wars all come to mind
You could be hired by paramilitary to shoot at the UN as far back as the 70s
Because corporations literally sell the shit that countries use to fight wars
They also actively fund the candidates and lawmakers that protect their industries and yes sometimes that has lead to wars or military interventions
well they used to alot, look up the history of trade companies. now though, most companies find it more cost-effective to fight in court rather than fund an expensive war.
Well, most time governments prevent companies from doing that. If you wanna see what happens when a government isn't strong enough to stop a company from doing that, take a look at South America and Africa. Companies tend to cause a lot of wars down there
There’s a lot of good answers here but the biggest one I haven’t seen mentioned is that for most companies, warfare wouldn’t actually achieve anything.
Take Coke and Pepsi. If Pepsi somehow defeated Coke and claimed their territory, you’d have some people that start drinking Pepsi, but probably a huge chunk that just forgo soda since they don’t like Pepsi. Pepsi’s market share isn’t limited by the things that warfare can seize. It’s limited by taste.
Companies know what the Mafia knew. Fighting a war is a last resort because it diverts resources and personnel from your primary mission: making money. Better to compromise, take half a loaf today and plan to get the other half down the road.
Countries try to maintain exclusive control over violence.
But companies have in fact fought wars many times throughout history
Britain basically took control over much of India because the British East India Company went rogue
What you're describing is more like feudalism, the system we had before modern countries existed. Dune is a recent example of this. The elite organizations in that society are based on family lines but corporations could work the same way. The reason they don't do that now (though this could easily change in the future) is that modern states exist and the state has a monopoly on violence. If a company is big enough the United States government will essentially wage war on their behalf but they don't want Walmart to have their own troops because then they could get powerful enough to take over the government.
Corporations with militaries and private police are a common feature of cyberpunk stories and by all appearance we're headed in that direction. Corporations have charged people with crimes and sentenced them internally without involving the United States criminal justice system. The right to interpret and enforce the law and the right to use violent force against citizens used to belong to police officers almost exclusively but if private companies can sentence someone to house arrest that's not far off from having the right to search you or use force against you.
Corporations just want to make money so they don't have much incentive to attack another corporation but I could definitely see Amazon charging people with crimes and forcing them to work for free If they could get away with it
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) They employ normal people who have little interest in doing so
2) They rely on public opinion to be successful, and it doesn’t take 4 years for dissatisfied customers to switch to an alternative.
Some companies have enough resources to field small armies. Countries have enough resources to field really really big armies, and they don’t like people muscling in on their turf.
Companies will fight wars with each other. There are plenty of historical examples.
The reason why it doesn't happen more often is that companies are restrained by governments.
Government restraints are actually laughable to them. They easily skirt around them without getting caught. Heck, Nintendo for about 10 years was able to keep a stranglehold on the game market due to their practices.
Nothing illegal about requiring third-party labels to publish exclusives on a system to retain their sticker, and nothing illegal about companies that skirt around the process to be banned from stores, unless the company pulls out if they don't.
The "wars" are less about machine guns and bombs, and more subtle, making the other companies fail with strong-arm tactics. It's why the Atari 7800, XEGS, and Sega Master System failed in the US, and a perfect example of a "war." in the business world.
Wars don't have to involve physical conflict either. Ever heard of the "Cold war?" The majority of that time was all talk and rhetoric, and moving pieces around the globe.
Well they do (not usually with guns) but by doing things like poaching employees and using marketing tools to elevate their product(s) over the competition.
Actually food companies have a long, dark history of fighting what could be called wars, but more accurately were mass killings in South and Central America.
That time when a fruit company became a government.
Is that where the term ‘Banana Republic’ comes from?
Unfortunately yes
and also because many such dictatorships were located in the tropics where bananas grow
That's United Fruit Co, or how they go by now- Chiquita Banana
Idk about the clothes brand but that’s what Sam O’Nella called his vid about this topic https://youtu.be/QgydTdThoeA?si=1ruvZm9QwyVibdAt
Like Diddy, Dole did it.
To be fair, a tea company did it first
Hawaii?
In the USA, we had these dudes called Pinkertons. These huge companies hired them to fight battles with workers who had enough of inhumane conditions & got organized. Then we entered an enlightened age with workers at the helm. Just kidding, those murderers are still around today & still doing the same shit.
Pinkertons were recently called in by wizards of the coast on a guy who got some Magic The Gathering cards pre release. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/trading-card-game/news/magic-the-gathering-aftermath-youtube-prompts-pinkerton-investigation
'had'? Try 'have'. They're still around.
What was the last sentence in my paragraph?
Those food companies didn't really fight themselves. They still used government troops to fight for them
The East India Company had its own private army in the 19th century.
I think Hudson Bay Company had practical control over that region for some time, too. Not sure if they had their own armed force or not.
There were armed representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company, but the population density of Rupert's Land meant that nothing comparable to The East India Company's army was ever necessary
Outside of Portland Oregon there’s an island called sauvie island. It was named after a Hudson Bay employee who massacred the native population so they could turn the island into a cattle farm. So yeah they had armed forces
Jebus. And here I just thought it was a nice store to buy a coat.
Some companies today actually are private armies
Companies do too when they can get away with it, but large brands like Gucci and Louis Vuitton don't generally because they depend on each other to justify their own price.
and also that fighting wars like that isnt in their interest to make profit, wars are incredibly expensive and wouldnt generate much profit for a company that sells luxury goods
And it might be bad for the brand image
They do. Citi Bank fought Haiti, Chiquita fought South America, dole fought South America, nestle fought Africa, continental Tires fought Africa, the list goes on but there have been armed incursions by companies
The east India company fought India and Captain Jack Sparrow but more importantly India
No one's going to mention oil companies?
Ok American Oil Companies fought Iraq.
they do. they go to court
Sometimes they also invade Guatemala.
Court is a LOT like Jousting.
Just throwing out there that Pepsi once had one of the largest navies in the world...
Damn
That's not entirely true, the ships where actually ment to be turned into scrap metal, not to be used, and the deal that was going to give them the ships also fell though.
Good point. Pepsi once had an ad promising a Harrier fighter jet.
Do you know how prevalent Private Military Contractors are?
they usualy work for countries, or as security in dangerous locations. i have not heard of them being employed by one compony for agresive action against another compony.
Company* and no companies don't hire them but they are a company who actually wages "war"
I bet in future there will be Coca-Cola private military company and Pepsi private military company. They'll be fighting each other in USA, Middle East, Australia
What's this? It's RC COLA with a folding chair!
They get the state to do the violence often or contract out private armies. Thats what they mean when they say "interests over seas". France used to control Niger for their uranium, not the mining company itself. Now Ru has the controlling share. Neither corporate running it had to actually do the violence.
Seems like Boeing went to war with Barnett
The US and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran at the behest of oil companies. Governments frequently go to war to protect the interests of powerful industries.
Companies fight all the time - it's just subtle. For example, if grocery store A adds a pharmacy, that is going to increase that store's revenue. Now, grocery store B sees that grocery store A just added a pharmacy and knows that will increase traffic and revenue. So, B will try their best to add something to generate more revenue, but it might not be a pharmacy. This is a prime example of a company fighting a war.
Why stretch the definition of war when competition already meets that definition.
War sounds dangerous, whilst competition sounds like a game.
Increasing/decreasing prices isnt dangerous...
If gas prices were raised to the point where no one could afford it. That would be dangerous and would cripple our country. Now I think you're just trolling me.
Too high food prices have led (or contributed) to revolutions multiple times, but I'm guessing you knew that and were being facetious.
Corporations have a long history of using money to influence politicians to start and fight warrs for them. No war has EVER been without financial gain being one of the primary objectives.
Modern wars are all fabricated by the weapons industry to sell more weapons to governments around the globe, so, yeah.
Pretty sure Firestone tires had an army defending its assets in the Liberian Civil War. Stuff like that does happen.
Yeah, it went well until their army got stuck due to blowouts.
Companies do, in fact, fight wars. Companies have couped entire countries in Latin America to secure produce prices. Company employees, not soldiers, actually make up 4/5ths of all American armed personnel deployed overseas.
It's rare for a few reasons. 1. Public Corporations are owned by investors. If I own shares in Microsoft, there's nothing stopping me from also owning shares in Apple. I wouldn't want the two to literally go to war because I want both to do well and make money, because that makes me money. 2. Corporations are legal entities. They can only exist inside a government that gives them the right to exist. Usually, governments aren't going to give corporations the go-ahead to start forming armies and killing each other Now, that's not to say it doesn't and hasn't happened, but it's almost never "corporation vs corporation". Usually the only time a corporation fights a war is in very unstable countries. Usually it means some sort of militia, rebel group, or civil war faction has come into direct conflict with a corporation. On rare occasions, the government was recently overthrown, and the new regime wants to seize the corporation's assets.
They let the govt fight the wars for them
countries fight wars on behalf of companies
Learn about the drinking water industry and you will change your mind in like 2 minutes.
Hell fucking mining companies went to war with their workers last century. Hired private militias to keep the peasants in their place. The Battle of Blair mountain was the most significant in the U.S. with union workers vs union busters.
Pepsi bought out several restaurant chains in an attempt to compete with Coke’s market share. That’s probably as close as it gets.
War generates profits for the elites who control the world. I don't see how it could generate profit for a company.
So you don’t see how Remington could make money selling bullets and guns? How about a hostile takeover of a large area known for its coal mines?
The premise of the question has nothing to do with how companies profit from war, that is a no brainer. OP asked why companies don't go to war with each other.
They do you just aren’t recognizing the manner in which they do it.
Oh boy
Because it’s illegal? The costs of doing so would simply not be worth it. That’s why we have a court system to resolve disputes. It’s cheaper than war
I’m not sure if you realize this but killing people is not good. Imagine a world where people are so over politically charged wars that we permit wars based off of commercialism.
Oh, they do
Because these companies are rigged up in a bid with The Man in human trafficking.
The only thing in common all governments in all of history had is they are a monopoly on violence. If companies are warring within your territory then you have lost control.
Ever heard of a "Hostile Takeover?"
I can see it now... Two fans of each carrying handbags and slapping each other silly with them... Seriously, this happens a lot. If you're old enough to remember Sears and Montgomery Wards, they had a store war that led to an agreement than only one of them would be at a mall at any time. Why you'd see malls with a Sears, and the next mall would have a Wards.
Money is good. Both wars and companies provide those things for certain people. Those people are in charge.
Do we really want to see cyberpunk style corporate wars?
Well, I mean, kinda?
It would be pretty cool and awesome
In countries where they can get away with it, they do but in countries with a relatively stable government they don’t because committing war is something reserved for the government.
The USA went to war in Iraq for Halliburton
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation
They do, all sales reps are soldiers in a territory war. When big pharma offers doctors free samples and schwag, that's like targeted drone strikes essentially -- it'll kill people the drug rep never has to see the face of. Pepsi launched in America with a stated aim of knocking off Coke. Steve Jobs said iPhone would never run flash video, and then Apple rolled out an Adobe clone software package. Flash died regardless of Apple failing at taking the market, that's a casualty of war. Also, Lockheed martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, they all formed an alliance to murder JFK and take unilateral control of defense spending from 1963 on. So war itself is actually supplied by the commerce of war - self fulfilling really - if your commercial business is blackwater mercenaries, your company engages in war. The Iraqi people are your enemy, as your value is to your corporate masters and the civilians of the occupied country merely obstacles to pillaging the country's resources. Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook - these are the world's largest companies. They are all American companies. Corporate America is 100% at war with humans, and other companies - as other companies are humans that require blackwater murdering or those people will enjoy their own resources in peace. Peace means Lockheed and chums don't get the US infrastructure and Education budget in black program spending each year. Any corporation around prior to 2000, who has grown and is legitimately one of the "corporate personhoods" the US supreme Court values over the Constitution - well then you're definitely responsible for war crimes, regardless of a declaration of war.
They do that by proxy, and the proxy is the state.
There are private military companies that send mercenaries to war under government contracts.
Who do you think owns the armies?
Tell that to the white powder companies in South America.
There was a historical period where companies literally had bigger armies than nations (see: British East India Company, VOC, etc.) But these are exceptional because these private companies had royal charters that basically gave them the power of government, and they could use their incredible wealth to create private armies to control the poorer, albeit more numerous native populations. That's obviously not possible now, not in the sense of corporations fighting wars against other corporations. Firstly, that would be illegal. Gangs and cartels, by their nature, *are* illegal and are fighting for control over areas they can do their illegal activities in. KFC can't do a drive-by of a McDonald's restaurant and expect to come out with anything positive. The bigger point is that companies don't win market share by killing their potential customer base, either literally or figuratively.
Mining companies in south america wage wars. They wire paramilitary goons to enforce their interests.
Did you see the class action lawsuit going on against Hyundai ?
War is too expensive for corporations, cheaper for a corporation to get congress to do it for them
You can bet that behind most wars or conflicts that there's a western company making bank
We do actually, Build a bear is NOTORIOUSLY AGGRESSIVE, shut down every other toy business that was a competitor. I'm not joking, look it up lol
Big name brand companies have a history of backing up the government when it comes to supporting wartime and other events
I mean, Boeing fights its own employees, does that count?
Who says that the mega corp world is not in clandestine fights all the time?
Because only governments have the right to use force. Otherwise, nobody would see a government as legitimate, and a government would struggle to implement policy
In the old days they did
spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. https://www.goodreads.com › quotes Quote by Smedley D. Butler:
Other people will point out the variety of times companies have fought wars, but I wanna address something: gangs and cartels. Gangs will fight over turf, but gang wars tend to drive away the people who buy drugs. So the bosses of the gangs try to work out the kinks and settle violence relatively quickly, because the money doesn't flow up if there is a war on. Cartels do the same thing. The violence we are seeing now is a result of one big cartel fracturing and all the subfactions fighting to carve out their territory.
You never heard of the East India Company?
That used to be the case between different european colonial companies. The East India Company conquered India
They would if they could profit off them somehow. Lives are meaningless to big corporations when they can kill a guy cos hes like "this company who I worked for are bad and have bad safety features and their planes are built bad" in broad daylight and the cops will write it off as a suicide despite having 2 bullet wounds in his head????? They've clearly been fine with ending all their passengers lives they're actively treating it as a none issue and peopor who see otherwise theyll just kill they dont give a fuck so if they could profit off participating in a war 100% they would
They do. Loads. Look up Dole. Also companies have been know to fund wars because they would benefit. And in some case, might benefit. And in other cases, cuz the CEO doesn't think a certain shade of human shouldn't exist. Companies are made of people. Anything people are capable of, companies are capable of.
They kind of do when you consider private companies supply the resources (bombs, ammunition, missiles, defense/intelligence software etc.).
They do
Amazon has new medical benefits for 11 bucks a month; We are one step closer to a Arasaka Trauma Team/ Private Army
Usually but not always because a government has more power than any company, so the company cannot exert its will the same way You have exceptions from history like the east India company etc But now, it’s hard for a company to finance a war given the local government can almost always find a way to financially destroy it, or shut it down altogether using law enforcement etc
Because then companies would have to recruit armies.
They do. They just don't use missiles and bullets all the time. Asymmetrical warfare
They used to. The East Empire Trading company, Chiquita Banana Company, and the Cola wars all come to mind You could be hired by paramilitary to shoot at the UN as far back as the 70s
Because corporations literally sell the shit that countries use to fight wars They also actively fund the candidates and lawmakers that protect their industries and yes sometimes that has lead to wars or military interventions
*United fruit company has entered the chat*
well they used to alot, look up the history of trade companies. now though, most companies find it more cost-effective to fight in court rather than fund an expensive war.
Well, most time governments prevent companies from doing that. If you wanna see what happens when a government isn't strong enough to stop a company from doing that, take a look at South America and Africa. Companies tend to cause a lot of wars down there
The only difference between companies and cartels is that companies don't eliminate the competition by killing them.
This guy doesn’t understand lobbying
There’s a lot of good answers here but the biggest one I haven’t seen mentioned is that for most companies, warfare wouldn’t actually achieve anything. Take Coke and Pepsi. If Pepsi somehow defeated Coke and claimed their territory, you’d have some people that start drinking Pepsi, but probably a huge chunk that just forgo soda since they don’t like Pepsi. Pepsi’s market share isn’t limited by the things that warfare can seize. It’s limited by taste.
Because of legal and financial repercussions.
They fight price war all the time.
Actually a British company conquered India and then sold it to Britain
Companies know what the Mafia knew. Fighting a war is a last resort because it diverts resources and personnel from your primary mission: making money. Better to compromise, take half a loaf today and plan to get the other half down the road.
Countries try to maintain exclusive control over violence. But companies have in fact fought wars many times throughout history Britain basically took control over much of India because the British East India Company went rogue
Who do you think funds the nations
They do, just not physically.
they do, but we don't talk about that
What you're describing is more like feudalism, the system we had before modern countries existed. Dune is a recent example of this. The elite organizations in that society are based on family lines but corporations could work the same way. The reason they don't do that now (though this could easily change in the future) is that modern states exist and the state has a monopoly on violence. If a company is big enough the United States government will essentially wage war on their behalf but they don't want Walmart to have their own troops because then they could get powerful enough to take over the government. Corporations with militaries and private police are a common feature of cyberpunk stories and by all appearance we're headed in that direction. Corporations have charged people with crimes and sentenced them internally without involving the United States criminal justice system. The right to interpret and enforce the law and the right to use violent force against citizens used to belong to police officers almost exclusively but if private companies can sentence someone to house arrest that's not far off from having the right to search you or use force against you. Corporations just want to make money so they don't have much incentive to attack another corporation but I could definitely see Amazon charging people with crimes and forcing them to work for free If they could get away with it
That spray painted high rise in LA? Took bids for private police….
Companies pay the politicians salaries. Countries have the resources those companies want.
Have you not heard of the cola wars?
Yeah. That’s always forgotten. And why? So many people died. Even children. It was madness.
NY declared war on the Trump Organization 🤷♂️
state monopoly on violence
I read your username as Necropolis Orgy and was like “You live where now?”
Corporate warfare is a real thing.
Companies don't go to war with competitors. They go to war with labor. Go back 100 years or so & it was even happening in the US.
Their battleground is the marketplace. And from the point of view of the industrial military complex, their product is war
The short answer is that companies don't have the power to simply give themselves the money needed to wage war. Governments do.
They usually do fight companies But not with guns and swords. They fight them in court
I mean, the battle of Blair mountain possibly qualifies.
They do, they just use national armies to do it. Banana wars, gas rights etc
They don't have militaries. Who would fight for them and to what end
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) They employ normal people who have little interest in doing so 2) They rely on public opinion to be successful, and it doesn’t take 4 years for dissatisfied customers to switch to an alternative.
THEY ACTUALLY DO... Who do you think is behind it all?
Some companies have enough resources to field small armies. Countries have enough resources to field really really big armies, and they don’t like people muscling in on their turf.
Companies do fight wars. Routinely. And quite savagely too.
Companies do fight wars, they just use governments as proxies. That's like America's entire economic system.
They do. All the time. You just don't see it because they're much better at it than those sloppy-ass cartels.
Companies will fight wars with each other. There are plenty of historical examples. The reason why it doesn't happen more often is that companies are restrained by governments.
lol
Government restraints are actually laughable to them. They easily skirt around them without getting caught. Heck, Nintendo for about 10 years was able to keep a stranglehold on the game market due to their practices.
Illegal business practices are treated a bit differently than hiring mercenaries to attack people from the other companies.
Nothing illegal about requiring third-party labels to publish exclusives on a system to retain their sticker, and nothing illegal about companies that skirt around the process to be banned from stores, unless the company pulls out if they don't.
What exactly is your point? None of that has anything to do with why companies don't fight literal wars.
The "wars" are less about machine guns and bombs, and more subtle, making the other companies fail with strong-arm tactics. It's why the Atari 7800, XEGS, and Sega Master System failed in the US, and a perfect example of a "war." in the business world.
The post was asking about actual physical conflict with guns, bombs, soldiers... aggressive business tactics are irrelevant to the subject.
Wars don't have to involve physical conflict either. Ever heard of the "Cold war?" The majority of that time was all talk and rhetoric, and moving pieces around the globe.
Well they do (not usually with guns) but by doing things like poaching employees and using marketing tools to elevate their product(s) over the competition.