I guess you could approach it that way. I definitely treat job interviews that way (e.g. try not to be negative about a previous employer, even if it is justified).

If I were in a situation where I felt like I needed to approach interactions with my manager this way lest they try to screw me, I don't think I'd be interested in staying in that kind of environment. I guess some folks have overriding priorities where they are willing to endure antagonism and gotchas like that, but sheesh.

I wouldn't say it's antagonism or anything like that, just as you aren't antagonistic towards the gear in your alarm clock. Nevertheless if the gear started playing up, you'd get rid of it without a 2nd thought.

Obviously this is filtered through (emotional) humans, and job roles have differing fungibility, but the corporation doesn't really care about you except perhaps where it benefits itself.

I don't grant the validity of that analogy. People aren't gears of a clock and, when you say they are to a corporation, you are giving them a pass that is built on assumptions of an agency which they lack. Maybe legally you cannot pierce the veil, but ethically and morally a corporation is just other people making decisions and doing things.

If someone is treated this way, a whole cadre of other >people< had to be the ones to enact it. My previous statement stands - maybe there are overriding reasons to do business with people like that for some, but to me that's a hard pass. If you can't trust somebody to even be a decent human being, what can you trust them with?