That corporation doesn't seem particularly effective at capturing marketshare (a proxy for the combination of price and quality). Total revenue of $16B across 4 major industries makes it a tiny player. Goldman Sachs had $59B in 2021 revenues alone, nevermind all the other big banks. The Wikipedia article further says "comparatively low wages [for managers] can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firms". Given the impact that skilled managers have historically had on companies (ex: Steve Jobs @ Apple, Lisa Su @ AMD, Howard Schultz @ Starbucks, etc), it seems unlikely that such an organization could effectively compete against normal corporations led by skilled CEOs.
And before you say that competition is not supposed to be the point of production, your geopolitical enemies aren't going to care about your nice ideals. If they can outcompete your inefficient economy and economically dominate you they will. You can't beat the market, even under socialism/communism.
The moment you implement true Marxism is the day I will fuck off and play video games all day, and my feeling is many smart people I work with will as well. Why work hard to be the best at something if you aren't rewarded for it? I for one would not want to better the lazy bums in my community with my work and by your twisted logic in your post history that somehow implies all of Marxism is wrong as I'm a counterexample.
That's why I provided the Wikipedia URL. Here's a useful quote: "In 2012 Richard D. Wolff, an American professor of economics, hailed the Mondragon set of enterprises, including the good wages it provides for employees, the empowerment of ordinary workers in decision making, and the measure of equality for female workers, as a major success and cited it as a working model of an alternative to the capitalist mode of production."
The other standard source for a critique of Capitalism is in the early works of Marx, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital . In Marx' later works, he gets a little cranky for my taste.
Why is “spending 70 years growing a collective workplace to huge scale” more correct than “unionizing a huge ultra-capitalist workplace that exists right now”?
Guess we'd better hop in the time machine and go back to 1950 to start the American equivalent of Mondragon to preemptively destroy Amazon before Bezos is even born, then.
I am not greedy. Therefore, your statement is, verifiably, false.
And, it, in fact, matters substantially which economic systems we are "under" (note your own choice of phrasing). Said economic system is the water in which we fish swim. We can hardly see it, due to its pervasiveness; and it is constantly reinforced by the very Capitalist Corporate Media whose job it is to keep the brainwashing going.
Unions used to be pervasive in this country. My dad was a member of the USW (United Steelworkers of America) and many unfair and unsafe labor practices were checked due to union solidarity. (I am NOT saying unions are perfect in every detail, only that a properly functioning union is usually the better deal for the common worker.)
These problems mentioned in this thread are due to the greed of Capitalists. Period.
Once the 'age of the Capitalist' is put behind us, and we move towards post-capitalism, then bs like OP mentions will be history.