Whats worse: a corporatocracy or stratocracy?

[DarkRange55]

What government is worse: an economic, political and judicial system controlled by mega-corporations or a government where military service and military institutions dominate and control the political and administrative apparatus.

Please don't just say, no government or neither. I'm asking, in your honest opinion, which is worse between the two?

 

[sserafim]

Depends on what the mega-corporations and military service/military institutions are like. Both options sound pretty bad imo

 

[BrainShower]

The junta is probably worse for most of the citizens than the United States (first option)
I'm not a fan of either. But the military dictatorship will always put might as the top priority, and the corporatocracy will put profits on top, which can be less violent.
Not too much better, but maybe a little?

 

[dragonofenvy]

Military dictatorships always put the person in power above all else. Looking at you Eritrea where military service is compulsory for a lifetime for every citizen male and female. They care not for the well-being of the people, just how many people can fill the armed forces so they can exploit other nations. Even if they don't go to war, some like North Korea exploit others by always being a threat to their neighbors and taking from others when they send aid (which North Korea ends up selling on the black market for weapons anyways). People have 0 freedoms under this system and live only to serve the military and eradicate their nation's enemies. I don't think many people want to go to a battlefield if they can choose.

Corporatocracy, at the very least, ensures a tiny amount of well-being since they can't exist without customers. People are generally a lot freer too and can have a life outside of work, unless you're in China where they work 6 12 hour shifts but that isn't a corporatocracy that's the government holding total power over businesses (socialism/communism once it reaches its extreme logical conclusion). The worst "real" corporatocracy is the US that I can think of, and even then we have 40-hour work weeks (compared to ~30 in European nations) and some amount of rights for workers but again not as good as Europe. Still better than non-European nations with a fair amount of exceptions that I'm sure people living in those countries could point out for me. If you push it to the extreme like I did for Eritrea then I suppose that would mean we'd be slaves that would work at our company, eat at our company, sleep at our company, and buy from our company. Remember those old mining towns that used to exist? They did that exact thing where the money that was paid was funneled straight back into the company.

The thing with extreme corporatocracy is that there's at least a chance to fight against it peacefully by boycotting or refusing work. The thing Americans need to do to get better rights but don't because not enough people want to or are able to. When I think of a corporatocracy my mind thinks of an America that has stripped workers of their rights and made employment compulsory on penalty of prison, where elections are only for those who run those corporations/rich similar to how it used to be in old republican and other electoral government forms of the middle ages up to the 19th centuries. One historical example is the United States again. You used to need to own land to vote and own at least x dollars in property, which of course, only the rich could afford. IIRC from old statistics only about 6% of the country could vote during America's founding. A similar system is in place in a couple of places today though it's not as obvious and typically they pretend that the common people have a vote.

There would at least be something outside of work. What do you have when you're under extreme military rule? How realistic are the extremes? Very. They've happened and still happen. They could happen to (y)our country 15 years from now, all it needs is one charismatic leader.