In modern society, corporations influence nearly every part of life, from the technology people use to the entertainment they consume. However, when companies gain too much power, profit can become more important than ethics, fairness, and even human life. Capitalism encourages innovation and competition, but unchecked corporate power can create monopolies that dominate the economy and influence politics. In Chain-Gang All-Stars, Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah imagines a dystopian future where incarcerated people are turned into violent entertainment for profit. The novel reflects real-world concerns about corporate greed, inequality, and the growing power of major corporations and Big Tech companies. When profit becomes more important than people, corporations can normalize exploitation, increase inequality, and convince society to accept harmful systems that value money and power over human dignity and fairness.

In Chain-Gang All-Stars, corporations normalize exploitation by turning violence and human suffering into entertainment for profit. The audience “laughed and cheered and cried. A show-woman to the end” (Adjei-Brenyah, page 7). Rather than responding with horror, spectators respond as though they are watching a performance designed for their entertainment. Their enthusiasm reflects how easily society can become desensitized to cruelty when violence is packaged as entertainment. The fighters are no longer viewed as human beings with lives, emotions, and families; instead, they become characters in a spectacle created to attract viewers and generate revenue. By transforming suffering into a source of amusement, corporations encourage audiences to prioritize excitement over empathy and consumption over compassion. Adjei-Brenyah deepens this criticism through the protesters who argue that audiences are “consuming poison no matter how savory the package” (Adjei-Brenyah, page 27). The metaphor of poison hidden within an appealing package suggests that harmful systems often become acceptable when they are marketed as beneficial, convenient, or entertaining. Consumers may enjoy the product without questioning the exploitation required to sustain it. Bethany McLean similarly argues that modern capitalism can fail when corporations prioritize profits over ethics, harming workers, consumers, and smaller businesses rather than serving the public good. (McLean). Like the spectators in the novel, people in the real world can overlook injustice when corporations successfully disguise its consequences behind convenience and entertainment. Economist Luigi Zingales also argues that capitalism functions best when markets remain fair and competitive rather than dominated by a few powerful corporations. Reflecting on the growing power of Big Tech companies, he warns that “there is little evidence the market will, or can, rein in these companies’ increasingly unchecked power” (Paul). Instead of assuming that competition will naturally correct the problems created by monopolies, Zingales suggests that large corporations can accumulate enough economic and political influence to avoid meaningful consequences for their actions. His concerns parallel Adjei-Brenyah’s depiction of the BattleGround, where institutions profit from exploitation while audiences gradually accept injustice as a normal part of society. Through fiction and nonfiction, a similar warning emerges: capitalism itself is not inherently harmful but when large corporations gain unchecked power, exploitation becomes easier to justify and increasingly difficult to recognize. Chain-Gang All-Stars ultimately argues that societies often surrender their values slowly, accepting systems that prioritize profit over human dignity because those systems are presented as beneficial, entertaining, or simply inevitable.

Unchecked corporate power can also increase inequality by concentrating wealth and influence among a small number of companies and individuals. Hannah Harris Green explains that today’s technology giants  have become so powerful that smaller businesses struggle to compete with them. She notes that “new technology companies are now formed not with the intention to challenge existing players but with the explicit aim of eventually being acquired by one” (Harris Green). Instead of encouraging innovation through competition, this system rewards dependence on already established corporations. Smaller businesses often have little choice but to cooperate with larger companies because competing against them has become nearly impossible. As a result, economic opportunities become increasingly unequal. Wealth, influence, and technological advancements remain concentrated among a select few, while workers and smaller businesses face greater obstacles to success. Harris Green argues that this imbalance contributes to a modern "second Gilded Age,” where the benefits of economic growth are not shared equally across society. Although capitalism has the potential to create innovation and prosperity, these advantages become limited when monopolies gain enough power to shape the market in their favor. Without accountability and fair competition, inequality continues to grow, benefiting large corporations while leaving others behind. Paul similarly explains that Zingales believes capitalism functions best when markets remain competitive rather than dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Zingales warns that there is little evidence that markets alone can restrain the growing influence of major companies, allowing them to gain increasingly unchecked power. When monopolies limit competition and shape economic conditions in their favor, the benefits of capitalism become concentrated among a small group of powerful corporations and individuals. Harris Green explains that today’s technology giants resemble the monopolies of the Gilded Age because they have accumulated extraordinary economic and political influence. Economist Mordecai Kurz argues that “Capitalism has to become more humane. It has to be more regulated. And in democracy, we don’t leave anybody behind” (Harris Green). His statement emphasizes that capitalism can only function fairly when governments prevent companies from gaining unchecked power. McLean echoes this concern, arguing that the problems facing modern capitalism stem from “weak” regulation, lack of competition, and failure of government to create fair rules” (McLean). Without accountability, large corporations are able to shape markets in ways that benefit themselves while making it increasingly difficult for smaller businesses and ordinary workers to succeed. Rather than creating equal opportunities for advancement, unchecked corporate power widens the gap between those who hold economic influence and those who do not. These growing inequalities demonstrate that capitalism requires oversight to ensure that prosperity is shared more fairly across society instead of being concentrated in the hands of a select few.

Unchecked corporate power can also shape the values of society by influencing what people see, discuss and ultimately accept as normal. Modern technology companies possess unheard-of influence because they control many of the platforms through which people receive news, communicate with others and form opinions. Kurz believes the concentration of technological power among a small number of billionaires threatens democratic society because it allows private interests to shape public discourse (Harris Green). Through algorithms, targeted advertising and control over digital spaces, corporations can influence which voices are amplified and which perspectives receive less attention. As a result, people may begin to accept growing inequality, reduced competition and corporate influence as unavoidable features of modern life rather than problems that should be challenged. McLean reinforces this concern by arguing that “today’s capitalism can look more like a nasty claw taking dinner off the table than it does a hand bringing bounty” (McLean). Rather than improving society through competition and innovation, powerful corporations can reshape public expectations until exploitation and inequality seem inevitable. When people begin to believe that these systems cannot be changed, they become less likely to question institutions that prioritize profit over the public good. Protecting human dignity therefore requires citizens to remain critical of corporations that increasingly influence how people think, interact and understand fairness.

However, some economists argue that Big Tech companies have earned their success through innovation rather than anticompetitive practices. Ryan Bourne contends that there is "neither any robust evidence consumers are harmed by tech companies’ current actions” (Bourne). He argues that companies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google became dominant because consumers genuinely value products and services they provide. Bourne points to the benefits these companies have created, noting that “Amazon delivers goods to us more efficiently than ever,” while "Facebook and Google provide us with valuable services free at the point of use” (Bourne). From this perspective, government intervention risks protecting competitors instead of consumers and could discourage innovation that improves people’s daily lives. Although Bourne presents a compelling defense of Big Tech, consumer convenience alone does not guarantee fairness or accountability. As Zingales warns, “there is little evidence the market will, or can, rein in these companies’ increasingly unchecked power” (Paul). Therefore, the issue is not whether these corporations have benefited society, but whether any company should possess enough economic and political influence to operate without meaningful oversight.

Ultimately, Chain-Gang All-Stars and modern debates about Big Tech demonstrates that capitalism works best when people matter more than profit. Although capitalism can encourage innovation and economic growth, those benefits weaken when corporations gain unchecked power and influence. Reading these sources has shown that capitalism itself is not the problem; the real danger arises when society stops holding powerful institutions accountable. To protect fairness, democracy and human dignity, success must always be balanced with responsibility.