Which megacorp could have become a nation-state?

Which company could have become like a country and survive to now?

  • British East India Company

    Votes: 73 65.2%
  • Dutch East India Company

    Votes: 17 15.2%
  • Hudson's Bay Company

    Votes: 16 14.3%
  • other corporation

    Votes: 6 5.4%

  • Total voters
    112
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Typo

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

Philip

Donor
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 governments
Of 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
The One Most Likely To...

...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.
 
Top