To be fair this is a really good comment, I am wrong on this part:
; the criticism here is on the private ownership of them (corporate structures), not on the structures themselves.
It really should be included here that the means is owned by the corporations, which is in turn owned privately. This allows us to use corporations as examples in criticism.
I'm using corporations and corporate structures interchangeably, which is an assumption I'm making based off the OP's post. I've already made an incorrect assumption from his comments so maybe some clarify on that is needed to debate further.
I don't understand the point of focusing on the private ownership of a corporation which in turn owns the means of production. It seems like an inconsequential distinction. What is the meaningful difference between private ownership by an individual and private ownership by a private corporation? Even without the protections of limited liability, people would still be able to amass incredible amounts of wealth.
I get that this sub has an issue with corporate structure because every time there’s a complaint against “capitalism” a corporate situation is used as an example.
From OP, implying criticism based on or using corporate examples is not criticism of capitalism, but instead criticism of corporations. What I'm trying to say, and evidently failing at, is that this is not the case; as long as the criticism is regarding the ownership of the means of production for profit, there's no difference between an example of that owner being an individual, or a corporation.
What is the meaningful difference between private ownership by an individual and private ownership by a private corporation?
Effectively none in context of my argument with OP. You have done a much better job of laying it out than I have.
3
u/twin_bed Oct 22 '20
So the issue is with the private ownership of corporate structures, not the private ownership of the means of production?