Good points made in it. Reminds me of Indi talking about "corporate AI": https://indi.ca/we-live-under-an-evil-ai-empire-already/

Which is like a technological take on this: https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/marx-on-capital-as-a-real-god-2/

The consistent theme seems to be an analysis that understands capitalism as operating through indirection (corporations, capital) to the extent that it becomes hard to nail it down as deriving from any one individual. With a monarchy, for example, we could point at the king and says he's to blame. But with capitalism, the system is more insidiously ensnared; it's always nobody's fault, somebody else's problem, beyond anyone's control, and yet somehow the fault of the individual whose life sucks (how nonsense!). This is not actually, materially true that it's nobody's fault at the top, but there's some truth in it. Taking out a single capitalist without doing anything else is like pulling out a single weed for all the difference it makes in the long-term. Granted, previous systems of power are not entirely dissimilar. We could also say that taking out a single king does not in itself destroy monarchy. But it is a much more direct path to changing hands of power. Capital, by contrast, operates with a mindset of diversifying, both in investment strategy and in power struggle.

Then there's marxists, who worked out the shell game the capitalists were doing with power and honed in on the means of production and distribution. And only then were they able to wrestle control from the capitalists at the source, instead of getting distracted with the blame-shifting. But I'm preaching to the choir.