Which megacorp could have become a nation-state?

[Strategos' Risk]

This is a badly phrased thread, but I'm asking- which real-life company could have amassed even more power and wealth in OTL to remain coherent enough to become considered for special status today in order to gain Westphalian sovereignty, similar to how the Holy See is able to have diplomatic recognition despite not being an actual nation-state?

Discuss.

[Sachyriel]

Disney. Walmart. Unico?.

EDIT: Monsanto?

[Strategos' Risk]

All of those are post-1900 companies, and none administered land like the ones in the poll.

I suppose I could have included the United Fruit Company.

[Ancien Regime]

Virtually ASB. There is not a single corporation that has ever existed that can claim territoriality in the sense of a monopoly of force over a significant territorial area. Even the corporations you mention were de facto extensions of the British/Dutch states; or could be considered "nationalized" in a sense. They derived their authority from charters given by their respective governments - could any corporation be immune to the revocation of said charter, AND gain international acceptance to the point that it is accepted as a nation-state?

Obviously corporations have a lot of influence, but the idea of a corporation acquiring enough territorial control (through singular control of pretty much every aspect of infrastructure, etc) in even an area just isn't happening.

The Vatican derives its statehood from its unique historical and religious position, as well as historical precedent. I don't think any other organization is ever attaining that.

[Adam]

Kramer-Aperture Industries.

[Sachyriel]

All of those are post-1900 companies, and none administered land like the ones in the poll.

I suppose I could have included the United Fruit Company.

Sorry I was browsing new posts and posted before the poll came up, I didn't notice what century we're in.

[Typo]

Becoming a state or nation-state, because the latter is effectively impossible by the nature of those companies?

[Hawkeye]

The United Fruit Company?

[Strategos' Risk]

They derived their authority from charters given by their respective governments - could any corporation be immune to the revocation of said charter, AND gain international acceptance to the point that it is accepted as a nation-state?

Unless the corporation privatized the government... (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?200023-Corporate-Takeover-a-BEIC-AAR)

[RyuDrago]

Probably in post-apocalyptic/Fallout like theatre...:p

[Philip]

I don't think nation-state is likely, but a sovereign state of the Westphalian type seems quite possible.

Virtually ASB.

Not even close to ASB. For Want of a Nail does a good job of such a situation.

Even the corporations you mention were de facto extensions of the British/Dutch states; or could be considered "nationalized" in a sense. They derived their authority from charters given by their respective governmentsOf course, they could stop recognizing that government as having authority over it and begin to operate on its own authority. Not that different than a colony achieving independence on its own terms.

- could any corporation be immune to the revocation of said charter,If it has already has territorial control and sufficient military strength, it could. Economic influence could do it as well.

AND gain international acceptance to the point that it is accepted as a nation-state?Why not? Rebellious colonies, regions, etc have received recognition throughout history. I can easily see the situation where Company A declares itself independent of State B. States C and D believe it to be in their best interest to weaken State B. C and D recognize Company A as State A.


Obviously corporations have a lot of influence, but the idea of a corporation acquiring enough territorial control (through singular control of pretty much every aspect of infrastructure, etc) in even an area just isn't happening.Seems to me that the East India Company came rather close to doing this. Had VOC lasted longer, I could see this happening as well.

[Solomaxwell6]

The United Fruit Company?

Yeah. The best bet is looking at private corporations' influence on banana republics. Colonial companies don't really count for reasons mentioned above, they were just extensions of actual nations.

In the case of a private company, it's more likely to be de facto ownership, rather than being literally synonymous with a state. President John Doe might be the ruler of Bananaland, but John Doe also happens to be a board member of UFCO. You could see a situation like that in any number of Latin American nations.

[Janprimus]

Either of the East India Companies, but I voted for the VOC;).

[Bureaucromancer]

I agree that it verges on possible for British East India, but the real question to me is why would it ever be in the companies interest to put itself in a position that would effectively cut off their relationship to the country that they get their income from? The ONLY way I see any chance of it is some kind of French victory in the Napoleonic era that leads to French dominance of North America, making extended blocking of trade with the French Empire seriously harmful in terms of the companies finances...

Even then you have the problem that the investors are all British, and mostly located in Britain, and it would not be at all hard to catch them all if they start doing anything like declaring independence. I could see them getting away with essentially ignoring British law for a awhile, but the practicalities of being a British chartered corporation mean that when the government gets fed up it's going to be very hard to find anyone able to run the company as a nation even if they could.

[Socrates]

Invalidating the East India Company as possibly becoming a state because it was an expansion of the British government is ridiculous - you could have said the same about the American companies. The East India Company controlled land, had its own armed forces, had an ample supply of manpower from the subcontinent, and had an effective state administrative apparatus. The only things tying it to the London government was (a) the need to be bailed out from bankruptcy now and again, and (b) the loyalty of its members. If finances were good, and the British Empire got bogged down in a civil war over, say, slavery the EIC could have had a good chance of going its own way.

[Baron Bizarre]

I didn't notice what century we're in.

That happens to me alot.

[Chookie]

Wake up folks - what about Microshite?


OOPS, too early, apologies..............

[ArKhan]

Any of them.

[Solomaxwell6]

Invalidating the East India Company as possibly becoming a state because it was an expansion of the British government is ridiculous - you could have said the same about the American companies. The East India Company controlled land, had its own armed forces, had an ample supply of manpower from the subcontinent, and had an effective state administrative apparatus. The only things tying it to the London government was (a) the need to be bailed out from bankruptcy now and again, and (b) the loyalty of its members. If finances were good, and the British Empire got bogged down in a civil war over, say, slavery the EIC could have had a good chance of going its own way.

The difference between the BEIC and American companies is that the BEIC was chartered by the Queen (yes, I realize that was the common practice of the time) and in many respects an extension of the national policy. It's not just a case of me saying "It was based in England, therefore it's part of England!"

Wake up folks - what about Microshite?

Microshite? Is that just some irrational rage induced misspelling of Microsoft?

[corditeman]

...Is the Honourable East India Company. They controlled a vast area of India, had their own sepoy armies (remember Clive?) and the Bombay Marine, their own dedicated naval force. Seamen aboard the HEIC ships had a share in the cargo-space so were semi-speculators and shareholders of a kind. If the HEIC had survived the 1857 Indian Rebellion without effective nationalisation, its 100-year rule of India might have continued to the point at which it controlled the Indian subcontinent. It issued its own coinage and made its own laws. What else do you want?

Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company as a start.

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

Hudson's Bay Company and East India Company could work. But only in the sense of, I could see them being the main authority in the area under the aegis of a more ad hoc British Empire.

They would not be sending ministers to parliament, and they would not have governors appointed, but they would have a lot of soft power at home, and British policy would have a lot of soft power over their policies. They probably would not be making deals with Britain's enemies.

You would need some government interference to keep the Hudson's Bay Company going, though. They had the monopoly. A divergence would be required that made them powerful and competitive enough to maintain a virtual monopoly over the area after the government stops enforcing it. If they were interested in investing in and controlling agricultural and industrial (?) development of the Canadian west, rather than opposed to it, that could help.

And perhaps all it would take for the East India Company to last as long as the Raj would be for the Indian Mutiny to not occur, or to be handled quickly and quietly by the East India Company itself.

[Ancien Regime]

Hudson's Bay Company and East India Company could work. But only in the sense of, I could see them being the main authority in the area under the aegis of a more ad hoc British Empire.

Yeah, this is about as far as I could see something like this going - I don't think there's much of a chance of the Companies getting American-style or even Commonwealth-style independence (well, *maybe* Commonwealth-style is possible).

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

Yeah, this is about as far as I could see something like this going - I don't think there's much of a chance of the Companies getting American-style or even Commonwealth-style independence (well, *maybe* Commonwealth-style is possible).

To further clarify; I mean that the people who live there would probably call themselves whatever nationality they last lived in, mostly British.

Hudson's Bay Company is the one I can see transmogrifying into a traditional state that survives to now, or unites with Canada and the Maritimes, or is possibly incorporated into the US as a Puerto Rico style special case. This would not really be the OP challenge fulfilled, since it would not be special status, except that their civil servants would be called HBC employees, and their head of state/government would be called president or CEO or whatever the HBC called them.

East India Company is always going to have a sell by date, based on Indian Nationalism. The very best they can hope for is that they hold on a bit longer before spawning India. And this India could possibly be more capitalist, inheriting the apparatus of a company rather than a government, or it could be more communist, raging against the machine of a company and so trying to do the opposite.

I don't know nearly enough about the Dutch East India Company to even comment. And my vote was for the Hudson's Bay Company, for reasons I expanded on in this post.

[chornedsnorkack]

IMO, Dutch East India Company is the more likely one.

Simply because British motherland was strong in 18th, 19th century. The one major defeat was American Revolutionary War, and neither Hudson´s Bay Company nor East India Company were in position to side with 13 Colonies. If 13 Colonies did conquer Rupert´s Land, they would have given it to Canada civilian government, not kept the Company around.

Whereas United Provinces were under French occupation between 1795 and 1814. Could you have had VOC that allies with Great Britain after the motherland falls to French, runs as an independent British ally, and when the motherland is liberated in 1814, reunification after 19 years of independence does not work out?

[Socrates]

East India Company is always going to have a sell by date, based on Indian Nationalism. The very best they can hope for is that they hold on a bit longer before spawning India. And this India could possibly be more capitalist, inheriting the apparatus of a company rather than a government, or it could be more communist, raging against the machine of a company and so trying to do the opposite.

Unless, of course, a charismatic leader of the EIC, potentially an Anglo-Indian, co-opts Indian Nationalism for their own ends as they declare independence from the Empire. You only need to get the elite on board to survive a long time - the peasant masses didn't become a real force until Gandhi, and that could be butterflied away if the EIC became to be seen as India. You could even imagine a peasant movement being painted as leftist and this independent EIC state gets American backing should this timeline have a cold war.

[Flocculencio]

Unless, of course, a charismatic leader of the EIC, potentially an Anglo-Indian, co-opts Indian Nationalism for their own ends as they declare independence from the Empire. You only need to get the elite on board to survive a long time - the peasant masses didn't become a real force until Gandhi, and that could be butterflied away if the EIC became to be seen as India. You could even imagine a peasant movement being painted as leftist and this independent EIC state gets American backing should this timeline have a cold war.

I'm struggling to see why foreign corporate overlords would be seen as "Indian" in any way.

[Julius Vogel]

The British South African Company had a Royal Charter from 1889 to 1923 for the exploitation and later control of Rhodesia (North and South). It was of course backed up by the British government and very much was a London company.

I guess it is possible that the failure to renew the Charter in 1923 could have been butterflied away, but whether or not the BSAC was sustainable economically is another question. Also, the Settlers probably would not have been super happy to remain under Company rule. Nor indeed would the indigenous peoples I imagine

[Socrates]

I'm struggling to see why foreign corporate overlords would be seen as "Indian" in any way.

I'm not saying they would, but if they nativise they could do. Just look at the Mughals.

[Caesar Australis]

Real easy, just have the metropole decapitated. Hard to have Britain cut off from their colonies, but doable with the Netherlands. The Dutch East Indies Company went bankrupt in 1798 and were nationalized... all they need to do is last until 1810 when the Dutch were formally annexed by France(though they'd presumably defacto secede and cooperate with Britain before then) and they'll be autonomous albeit British aligned. Assuming the British don't choose to incorporate them formally under British authority, and assuming the coalition failed to defeat Napoleon and liberate the Netherlands, they could develop into some style of state that could then co-opt nationalism.

[Strategos' Risk]

Interesting proposal to alter the Napoleonic Wars. I would also like random butterflies to allow the Order of Malta to retain control of their territories, so this way there can be more than one weird non-nation-state sovereign entity that administers land in the world besides the Holy See.

[Flocculencio]

I'm not saying they would, but if they nativise they could do. Just look at the Mughals.

The Mughals weren't milking the country and taking the fruits of it's productivity overseas.

[Tobit]

I think the best time for a corporation to rise would be the late 19th or early 20th century. Perhaps if Rhodes was less of a patriot toward britain? Or if some how some of the huge German corporations decided to buy up land in the Africa.

The Free State of Congo was owned as private property right?

In the US railroad companies certainly owned small countries worth of land.

[Strategos' Risk]

I also have to say, as cool as the idea is, the much-vaunted realism of For Want of a Nail kinda falls apart with Kramer Associates. Take a look at these figures. (http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4444087&postcount=31)

That said, a BEIC or VOC or HBC or etc. doesn't have to be that implausible to come to power.

[Tobit]

An alternate Scramble for Africa, might end up with a massive Private Company controling a huge amount of land. If you add the Congo to Rhodesia they could later purchase Mozambique and Angola. If that company could survive into the modern world they would have the Uranium to explode a nuclear bomb, and the world's supply of Cobalt.

[Archdevil]

^^

That's a good idea.

Leopolds Congo was definately a private enterprise already, the International African Association was a front for Leopold and the later rubber business of the Compagnie du Congo Belge had Leopold as the sole chairman and shareholder.

[Falecius]

IMO, Dutch East India Company is the more likely one.

Simply because British motherland was strong in 18th, 19th century. The one major defeat was American Revolutionary War, and neither Hudson´s Bay Company nor East India Company were in position to side with 13 Colonies. If 13 Colonies did conquer Rupert´s Land, they would have given it to Canada civilian government, not kept the Company around.

Whereas United Provinces were under French occupation between 1795 and 1814. Could you have had VOC that allies with Great Britain after the motherland falls to French, runs as an independent British ally, and when the motherland is liberated in 1814, reunification after 19 years of independence does not work out?

VoC no longer existed at the time. IF you manage it to stay around past French Invasion, though, it would be an interesting scenario.

[Socrates]

The Mughals weren't milking the country and taking the fruits of it's productivity overseas.

Right, but I'm not saying OTL BEIC could become identified with India overnight immediately after a point of difference. I'm just saying its plausible that it could develop in a way in the longer run. Say that Britain has a civil war or a revolution for some reason or another, or that Britain gets invaded by France, the EIC continues to operate for a long time with much autonomy. Eventually, when parliament severely threatens the economic interests of the top members of the EIC they decide to declare independence in the mid-1800s, and cut off British shareholders. Between the 1850s and the early 1900s, the top managers receive the lions share of the profits and bed down in elite mansions in India. They change their name to the India Republic and increasingly recruit from upper class natives. The constantly curse British and Western meddling in India, saying that Westerners do not understand the country. By the time nationalism takes off in the 1930s they can co-opt it for their own uses. Just as criollos have done in Latin America.

[Typo]

Right, but I'm not saying OTL BEIC could become identified with India overnight immediately after a point of difference. I'm just saying its plausible that it could develop in a way in the longer run. Say that Britain has a civil war or a revolution for some reason or another, or that Britain gets invaded by France, the EIC continues to operate for a long time with much autonomy. Eventually, when parliament severely threatens the economic interests of the top members of the EIC they decide to declare independence in the mid-1800s, and cut off British shareholders. Between the 1850s and the early 1900s, the top managers receive the lions share of the profits and bed down in elite mansions in India. They change their name to the India Republic and increasingly recruit from upper class natives. The constantly curse British and Western meddling in India, saying that Westerners do not understand the country. By the time nationalism takes off in the 1930s they can co-opt it for their own uses. Just as criollos have done in Latin America.More importantly, the Mughals were not a nation-state, there is not way around the fact that a Nation-State essentially requires the ejection of foreign rulers. This is of course not to say those companies could not establish some sort of a corporatist state, just not a nation-state

[Socrates]

More importantly, the Mughals were not a nation-state, there is not way around the fact that a Nation-State essentially requires the ejection of foreign rulers. This is of course not to say those companies could not establish some sort of a corporatist state, just not a nation-state

Depends on classification I guess. Is Brazil a nation state?

[JimTheB]

The Hanseatic League was pretty much dominated by mercantile interests. Does it qualify as a nation-state, as it was able to raise fleets and armies, impose tariffs and taxes and generally impose its will on its neighbours if it could get away with it? It certainly wasn't a confederation of one-horse towns. Nah, on mature reflection, it was too loose to qualify but I thought I might throw it into the mix anyhow.

[Typo]

Depends on classification I guess. Is Brazil a nation state?Yes, in the sense that there is clearly a Brazilian nation with a state, though in Latin America nation might not be synonymous with ethnic-nationalism due to the unique colonial history of those states. In India however, a much more conventional form of ethnic-nationalism is necessitated, unless the EIC somehow commits genocide against the Indians and then brings in enough White/African settlers on the same model as Latin America.

[kevvy2010]

Disney

Isn't Disney already its own government?

[Socrates]

Yes, in the sense that there is clearly a Brazilian nation with a state, though in Latin America nation might not be synonymous with ethnic-nationalism due to the unique colonial history of those states. In India however, a much more conventional form of ethnic-nationalism is necessitated, unless the EIC somehow commits genocide against the Indians and then brings in enough White/African settlers on the same model as Latin America.

Places like Peru and Bolivia have indigenous majorities yet still have functioned as "nation" states by your definition. If the EIC leadership go back to breeding with the natives once they cut their ties with Britain, it's quite possible that could happen over time. Equally, look at Ireland - the Old English eventually became nativised. You would just get a slightly stronger version of what you currently have in India: a strong class system with more whiteness as you go up the scale.

[birdboy2000]

HBC didn't lose its territory OTL until the late 1860s and seemed to have a better relationship with the various peoples of Rupert's Land than their Canadian successors would. Maybe if you avert confederation or give them some more friends in parliament, they'd have a better chance?

OTOH, there's probably going to be significant anglo settlement in the territory, whether the government likes it or not. And that'll probably bring ethnic conflict and the introduction of a population less happy with corporate rule.

[Typo]

Places like Peru and Bolivia have indigenous majorities yet still have functioned as "nation" states by your definition. If the EIC leadership go back to breeding with the natives once they cut their ties with Britain, it's quite possible that could happen over time. Equally, look at Ireland - the Old English eventually became nativised. You would just get a slightly stronger version of what you currently have in India: a strong class system with more whiteness as you go up the scale.The problem is that I feel to distort Indian nationalism like that you would need to inflict the same amount of damage (i.e destroy) on the native society as the Spanish did in Latin America, and replace it with something else. I don't see how or why the EIC would do something like that.

[Socrates]

The problem is that I feel to distort Indian nationalism like that you would need to inflict the same amount of damage (i.e destroy) on the native society as the Spanish did in Latin America, and replace it with something else. I don't see how or why the EIC would do something like that.

I guess it all comes down to quite what counts as "nationalism". I think you could potentially get something like post-Mandela South African nationalism: "We're all Indians together, no matter what tribe you are or where your ancestors came from." If the upper administrative class is vocal enough about attacking Westerners and colonialism, I think it could happen. The upper, semi-Portuguese descent class in Angola might be a good example.