Megacorp, not autocratic? (Fanatic Authoritarian)

[TSP]

Why can a Megacorp not choose to have the Fanatic Authoritarian government ethic?
Fanatic Authoritarian has the "Must have Autocratic Government form" requirement.
Corporate Authority holds an election every 20 years.

I suppose the issue lies in the latter? Which also doesn't necessarily make sense: There are lots of Corporations out there that have one ruler until they die. And some rule with an iron fist, and some don't have elections on who becomes the next ruler, so you could even consider it Imperial in such circumstances. Therefore, Corporate Authority can be deemed an Autocratic Government form and should thus be allowed to have the Fanatic Authoritarian government ethic.

Thoughts or arguments against?

[Stormsong]

Presumably they wanted to model MegaCorps off of publicly traded entities. Those tend to have multiple handlers: boards, investors, chiefs (executive, financial, tech, etc) even if they have one "face" that the public interacts with. Companies truly run by one person are private, or at least no examples of single decision maker public companies come to mind.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Agent Orange:

There are lots of Corporations out there that have one ruler until they die.

In real life, publicly traded Corporations aren't "ruled" by the guy at the head of the company, they're "ruled" by the investors, because they decide who gets to be in that position. As such, the head of such a company can by definition never be an Autocrat, even if the rest of the company was structured in such a way that one person has all the power.

Not sure how Stellaris exactly envisions future Corporations to work, but they mimic many of the structures we see in real life right now, so they're probably meant to work similarly. The election system, I would argue, is more a game mechanic than anything else.

[mss73055]

It's the other way around:
Fanatic Authoritarian ethos doesn't take Megacorp bull talks :D

"until they die" will happen after 1 or 2 terms of 20 years.

[mss73055]

The current model mimics the republics in renaissance northern Italy.
In particular Miland, Genoa and Venice.

[TSP]

Originally posted by Stormsong the Fallen:

Presumably they wanted to model MegaCorps off of publicly traded entities. Those tend to have multiple handlers: boards, investors, chiefs (executive, financial, tech, etc) even if they have one "face" that the public interacts with. Companies truly run by one person are private, or at least no examples of single decision maker public companies come to mind.

I thought that was a relatively new development. If I am understanding it correctly, in Bill Gates' case, he had full control over the company until 2000.

The shareholder thing would make sense if it was an actual in-game mechanic; the voting process isn't done in an "investor" kind of way at all.

That said, private colony ships do exist, which would imply sub-franchises/corporations within the megacorporation. If you have full control over the megacorporation that encompasses them and investors being a separate entity that decides the fate of megacorporations... Food for thought.

Originally posted by mss73055:

It's the other way around:
Fanatic Authoritarian ethos doesn't take Megacorp bull talks

Jeff Bezos is leading his company as authoritarian as is legal in a democracy, and pushing those boundaries. So your statement isn't absolute in the real world.

Originally posted by mss73055:

"until they die" will happen after 1 or 2 terms of 20 years.

The point I'm driving here is elections, not how long the terms are.

Originally posted by Ryika:

As such, the head of such a company can by definition never be an Autocrat, even if the rest of the company was structured in such a way that one person has all the power.

Taken from the internet:
Autocrat
taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering.
"a man with a reputation for an autocratic management style"

The only thing you could argue about those that rule a company ruthlessly is that they take into account maximizing profit. Often at the expense of everything else.


I don't know. Maybe we just need to pick a definition of Autocrat we all agree on and then settle a discussion regarding whether a Megacorporation's rule can or cannot rule with fanatical authority over its company.

Because that's what some companies do in the real world, whether you disagree about that or not.

[Mistfox]

Originally posted by Agent Orange:

Jeff Bezos is leading his company as authoritarian as is legal in a democracy, and pushing those boundaries. So your statement isn't absolute in the real world.

This is actually a misunderstanding of how his company actually works in real life. He's no longer the CEO, he got replaced by Andy Jassy. He is rude and an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ but he does not have autocratic authority. Rudeness is not authority, it is simply just rudeness. He still has to publish his annual report for the shareholders and investors like everyone else. In the past that is, he's no longer the CEO.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Agent Orange:

Taken from the internet:
Autocrat
taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering.
"a man with a reputation for an autocratic management style"

The only thing you could argue about those that rule a company ruthlessly is that they take into account maximizing profit. Often at the expense of everything else.

I don't know. Maybe we just need to pick a definition of Autocrat we all agree on and then settle a discussion regarding whether a Megacorporation's rule can or cannot rule with fanatical authority over its company..

We're talking about autocracy as a government form, not a metaphorical "behaves like an autocrat"-autocrat.

It's pretty clear what that is:

autocrat
a ruler who has absolute power.

[Oakshadow]

Mega-corps can't be fanatic egalitarian or authoritarian because megacorps are about the corp. Not ruling people. To be a fanatical about either end of that particular axis would mean having an ideology other than making profit. Which is the whole point of a Mega-corp. Thus the focus on trade income.

You have to look at the wheel in two stages. The inner wheel is meant to represent a general leaning. It's how your society sees the world but doesn't consciously think about the fact that it sees it that way. To be Fanatical requires a focus to the detriment of everything else.

As for elections, I can't think of too many CEO's that have stayed around more than 20 years. Even Bill Gates cashed out control over the company within that time. Bezos is coming close to stepping down himself and Musk has been slowly losing control himself. You could force your leader to remain via unity during the following election. But it's the nature of oligarchy that a leader has to ensure the oligarch's interests to stay in power. The minute a CEO starts failing to turn a profit he's usually ousted. As corporations are pretty dependent on stock values to provide the funding necessary to maintain their size and competitiveness.

[mss73055]

Autocrat is an euphemism. The meaning through history is monocrat.
Or autistcrat :D

[mss73055]

The meaning of officer is in the word : someone given a task to complete.
CEO, police officer or army officer may be met with respect. Yet these roles are servants and not kings.

If Jeff Bezos is on the king's throne then it's time the king puts the dog back under the table.

[Xautos]

Originally posted by Agent Orange:

Why can a Megacorp not choose to have the Fanatic Authoritarian government ethic?
Fanatic Authoritarian has the "Must have Autocratic Government form" requirement.
Corporate Authority holds an election every 20 years.

I suppose the issue lies in the latter? Which also doesn't necessarily make sense: There are lots of Corporations out there that have one ruler until they die. And some rule with an iron fist, and some don't have elections on who becomes the next ruler, so you could even consider it Imperial in such circumstances. Therefore, Corporate Authority can be deemed an Autocratic Government form and should thus be allowed to have the Fanatic Authoritarian government ethic.

Thoughts or arguments against?

Corporate authority is different from political authority and in the world of finances it's more about monopolies and cornering the market in order to marginalise and push out competition. Death and destruction is the last thing that a white collared criminal wants to get involved in, there is no profit in it.

[CBR JGWRR]

The simplest answer is that a Fanatic Authoritarian MegaCorp is no longer a Capitalist entity; the Capitalist wants more money so that they can make more money, while the Plutocrat wants more money to accumulate more power. An Egalitarian Capitalist governance form is that of a publicly traded corporation where the board are answerable to the shareholders, while an Autocratic Capitalist governance form has the board answerable to dynastic/monopolistic conglomerate types, a Fanatic Authoritarian MegaCorp can't because at a fundamental level the primary goal is no longer maximum profit but maximum power.

SImilar with Fanatic Egalitarian; conceptually a Fanatic Egalitarian MegaCorp would have a governance structure of a kind where the MegaCorp effectively has citizenship equals shareholder arrangement and under those circumstances the MegaCorp again ceases to be about maximum profits; instead it wants an abstraction of whatever the shareholders as a whole want.

----

Shareholder mechanics would be an interesting dynamic, particularly with the potential of the vassals rework coming in Overlord. Unfortunately the AI would probably completely mess up, but it is a very interesting story opportunity if MegaCorp governments and MegaCorp Franchise Vassals could issue shares, and other governments could buy or sell shares. After all, if you buy a majority stake in someone else's vassal as a hostile takeover bid, that could have quite interesting dynamics.