You're entitled to feel whatever you want about how Amazon behaves. It will not affect how Amazon behaves, even if presented in a very inspirational way. Inventing a 2400 year history of discussion of "private cooperative endeavors" that change "countless times," however, is not inspirational. Be specific about what has happened, when it happened, and how it has changed things. Point out when random people's feelings about "the arrangement" have mattered, and when the "cynical" opinion about that was wrong.
Or better, face the fact that Amazon responds to power, not to you. People who post just to call other people's opinions cynical, without adding anything of substance, could be replaced with AI with no loss. You don't know anything about people's dreams.
> will not affect how Amazon behaves, even if presented in a very inspirational way.
It does and will. Amazon has to respect laws and not alienate customers, and also has goodwill toward their community - even if it's trendy to talk like sociopaths.
> Inventing a 2400 year history of discussion of "private cooperative endeavors" that change "countless times," however, is not inspirational.
I don't know about the length of time, but the discussion has gone on for generations.
Your current position is tied to a 1980s theory, new at the time (and maybe from Milton Friedman?), that the only role of corporations is serving its shareholders. Somehow, people have accepted this one theory as an eternal truth. But clearly that doesn't happen; it's a matter of degree: Corporations pay taxes, fund workers compensation, etc.
More recently DEI and ESG have been widely embraced, one side of the argument, and currently the tide in the US is to reject them. The tide will change again.
In other countries, the degree of oblgation to other stakeholders is much greater. German companies are required (?) to have labor representatives on the board of directors, for example. Japanese companies traditionally have a very strong commitment to career employees.