I completely agree. The "people's republic of walmart" is no joke. Corporations give character to the socialist idea.
The issue is that corporations in themselves are limited entities that expand faster than they can sustain themselves, because business as a system depends on either competition or loyalty. Where monopoly emerges with corporations or the state there is inefficiency, or what i like to call the "residual economy" of losses, like shoplifting, money laundering, bureaucracy and so on.
In biology we might say that the bigger an organic system becomes the more parasites hang on, which is the inverse function of wealth, where you can become so wealthy that you end up losing your money, like we see today with the west, which is squandering its wealth on the poor of all kinds, because the bigger the pie the more slices available.
Of course this makes sense for the socialist who views Value as a social totality (drawing its basic unit from the economic base) but can wealth distribution today truly be understood as the rich simply giving back stolen wealth? We can imagine a society where this happens; where theres a 100% tax rate and 1:1 measure of value given back to the public. For some reason i dont imagine prosperity, but even worse poverty to workers than before. And why? Because so many dont work, and too, so many are varying in productive capability. Workers may receive the same wages based on labour-power with a minimum wage, but they dont all expend the same labour.
Marx talks about this in the critique of the gotha program; that equality amidst the working class is a political fiction, and it can be best represented by my simple example. Its no surprise that in marx's day there truly was an aristocracy of labour.
But back to corporations - what more can i say? Theyre funded by taxes, they destroy communities, they encourage mindless consumerism (aided by welfare), they're woke, and they always fail in the end.