Should the US government break up some of the largest corporations?

[bedstuy]

Antitrust legislation is reactionary, so no. The idea that small production is inherently better is a bizarre petty bourgeois affectation that ignores the economies of scale and general gains yielded from larger, more complex industrial arrangements.

Encouraging "small production" is unequivocally not the purpose of anti-trust laws.  But, I guess if you're a marxist, you're relieved of the obligation to pay attention to reality.  "Petty bourgeois!!!"  "Industrial arrangements!!!"  Great economic analysis. 

The point of anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolistic behavior that restrains competition in the market.  I guess marxists need to dislike that idea because they want a government monopoly instead of a free market system, but that's the idea, like it or not.

I think it's an unlettered, silly thing to across the board say large corporations should be broken up.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with a large corporation.  But, there are probably some candidates for antitrust action that we should think about, big banks, telecom, etc.  Unfortunately, we won't because of money in politics.  Oh well.

[bedstuy]

I would love to see democracy in all workplaces.  One person, one vote.  Employees elect their managers and decide their pay and bonuses.

This can be accomplished in large companies...but should gain a foothold in smaller companies first.

Breaking up monopolies is good.  More importantly, we should be more skeptical of mergers and acquisitions...and there should be a strong labor component inthese decisions and approvals.

That wouldn't work as well as shareholders electing a board of directors.  Employees are often at cross-purposes with the best interests of the corporation.  Ultimately, the only people with the long-term best interests of the corporation at heart are the residual claimants.