Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 11, 2018

Hedges: There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or workers within the framework of global capitalism. Corporate capitalism uses identity politics, multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, generating inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and security and surveillance omnipotence. Corporate capitalism cannot be reformed, despite its continually rebranding itself. Capitalism lurches from crisis to crisis. The longer the liberal class work within "inverted totalitarianism," the more the noose will tighten around our necks. Corporate capitalism owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It dismantles democratic institutions, permits infrastructure decay and de-industrializes its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad where workers are treated as slaves. As long as unregulated capitalism reigns supreme, all social, economic, cultural and political change will be cosmetic.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Corporate Capitalism uses the projection of military power by the US to protect and advance its economic interests and simultaneously cannibalizes the U.S., Unless we bring government and financial systems under public control, including nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry, we will continue to be victims.

Any successful resistance must build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist movements in Europe and other countries. Donald Trump would never have been elected but for this betrayal.

Capitalism is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, like any parasite, it damages the host that tolerates it.

Workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the narrative that the working class is racist. I think this has been the narrative pushed by the pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in the society. Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to address the major problem."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Per the article ...

There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or workers within the framework of global capitalism.

Corporate capitalism uses identity politics, multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, generating inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and security and surveillance omnipotence.


Two words = Bernie Sanders

I still have a stash of 'Billionaires Can't Buy Bernie' bumper stickers.

Here's all the big ticket items we've spent as a nation within the last twenty years ...

• Two Bush Tax Cuts = $6.6 trillion (2001, 2003)
• Medicare Part D = $1 trillion (2003)
• Iraq/Afghanistan Wars = $7 trillion (2003 - 2018)
• Wall Street Bank Bailout = $12.8 trillion (2008)
• Obama Stimulus = $1 trillion (2009)
• Trump/GOP Tax Cuts = $1.5 trillion (2017)

Almost $30 trillion since 2001.

None of what Chris Hedges is saying will ever change for the better until regular people start asking the obvious questions about the nation's money ... how the nation's money is spent ... and why the nation's money can't be spent on things that benefit us all.

Only when critical mass is achieved in people asking these type of questions will things change for the better.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-11 04:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh, BS. The working class is racist because having white skin promotes white supremacy, as does studying Western academics and especially non-subjective sciences like mathematics and physics. The author is clearly a Nazi pedo-pal who rejects social justice.

The only way to break the back the Racist Western Patriarchy is to embrace globalism and ship all of our jobs to utopian societies like those in China and Mexico, where female workers are finally treated with the dignity they deserve, environmental and safety laws are enforced, and unions are legal. Now that would be social justice for America!

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-11 04:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Per the article ...

Capitalism is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good.

But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, like any parasite, it damages the host that tolerates it.

Workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the narrative that the working class is racist.

I think this has been the narrative pushed by the pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in the society.

Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to address the major problem."


This can be overcome if people can understand how the nation's money is spent -- once this is understood, then people will stop putting political party over principle ... www.drudge.com ... and start demanding the change that crosses over all political affiliations, which is what Hedges is getting at.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-11 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's an interesting comment from the article's comments section...

Godson Geld
8 hours ago

Identity politics has united the Right while fragmenting the Left...as usual.

Conservatives rally like a wolf pack, while Liberals scatter like cats.

Perhaps we need to change their respective logos to reflect this?

The elephant is too peaceful an animal to represent Republicans, and the ass...well...let's keep that one for the Democrats, for now


This is exactly what I was saying in the 'Party over Principle's' thread.

#4 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-11 05:12 PM | Reply

Nice communist manifesto. Vote for the party that best represents your interests and those you care about.
Pouting because the left doesn't want to nationalize the banks will ensure a crony corporate globalist victory.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-11 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

5 The article wasn't about just nationalizing banks. But go ahead and make it that.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-11 06:18 PM | Reply

"None of what Chris Hedges is saying will ever change for the better until regular people start asking the obvious questions about the nation's money ... how the nation's money is spent ... and why the nation's money can't be spent on things that benefit us all."

It would be meaningless to ask those questions without first understanding how money is earned. Because before any dollar can be spent, it must first be earned. Which means that someone must engage in those activities that result in earnings. And when you want to take more from those who have earned it and spend it on those who have not, your challenge is convincing those who make the money to keep doing so, even when it may not be directly in their benefit to do so.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-11 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

7 We need to increase the velocity of money by increasing wages, starting with the working class. This will radically increase consumption, and therefor production, and thus employment and world wealth. But hey, if you want to argue against unions and workers rights and support slave labor, go ahead and join the enemy. With your help, we can end the cultural exploitation of Western values (such as having a middle class) by the third-world sith holes, and thus hand the SJW's the victory they so desperately desire.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-11 06:51 PM | Reply

It would be meaningless to ask those questions without first understanding how money is earned.

#7 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Henry Ford understood it, which is why he raised wages on his employees. Why? So his employees could afford to buy his model-T cars.

But today, instead of raising wages, wages are suppressed and the savings are passed on as bonuses to CEOs and shareholders.

You're overthinking all of this.

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-11 06:53 PM | Reply

"It would be meaningless to ask those questions without first understanding how money is earned. Because before any dollar can be spent, it must first be earned."

Can you show me the math on that one?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-11 06:53 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Henry Ford understood it, which is why he raised wages on his employees. Why? So his employees could afford to buy his model-T cars."

How much would Boeing need to increase wages so that employees could afford a 737? Or more to the point, how would Boeing benefit from increasing wages? And don't you think the company's economists have already looked at this?

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-11 07:30 PM | Reply

#11 Really. That was an incredibly stupid argument. A 737 is not a consumer product. Ask what a Boeing employee would need to make to afford a Ford and a family and nice house, and you would have an argument.

I can't believe you actually said something that insane as an argument. Next, you will tell me that Julian Assange is a Russian Agent. Or we could go Chem-trails, or Pizza-gate. That's about on the same level.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-11 07:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Ask what a Boeing employee would need to make to afford a Ford and a family and nice house, and you would have an argument."

No I wouldn't. Pinch's point was the Ford increased wages because it was economically beneficial for Ford to do so. In reality he increased wages for very different reasons, but that's neither here nor there.

But I can't see how the argument that Boeing increasing wages would ever benefit Boeing.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-11 07:56 PM | Reply

"Corporate Capitalism uses the projection of military power by the US to protect and advance its economic interests and simultaneously cannibalizes the U.S"

The politics of neoliberal DNC centrists, and Corky's astroturf handlers.

#14 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-02-11 08:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pinch's point was the Ford increased wages because it was economically beneficial for Ford to do so. ~ MadBomber

Total labor costs decreased because of less turnover.

But I can't see how the argument that Boeing increasing wages would ever benefit Boeing. ~ MadBomber

Only if it could be shown that less turnover would be beneficial to total labor costs offset by the wage increases.

In both cases the qualified/skilled labor pool is important.

Which is why unskilled labor is getting hammered due to unskilled illegal immigration, turnover and training are almost nil in relation to total labor costs.

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-11 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

madbum.

Our tax code has long recognized the difference between earned and unearned income and assigns different tax rates for each case. In the IRS code, investment profits, inheritances and rents are unearned. Republicans have succeeded in lowering the taxes on unearned income, which accumulates while you sleep. The other important characteristic of unearned income is it does not contribute new wealth to the nation, it just transfers wealth from one person or entity to another. People who actually work productively and thereby increase national wealth, are being taxed at a higher rate now. This is very bad policy, but consistent with the demands of the 1%.

#16 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-11 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Pinch's point was the Ford increased wages because it was economically beneficial for Ford to do so. In reality he increased wages for very different reasons, but that's neither here nor there.

But I can't see how the argument that Boeing increasing wages would ever benefit Boeing.

#13 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

From the thread on the Front Page ...

www.drudge.com

One basic reason for the shared prosperity of the postwar era was that the gains in American economic growth and efficiency got passed through to average Americans.

From 1945 to 1975, the productivity of the American workforce roughly doubled. Productivity rose nearly 97% and the median hourly wage and benefits went up 91%. In short, the rising tide was truly lifting all boats.

In that era, CEOs of America's corporations did not pay themselves vast sums of company stock, as they do today. That was frowned upon as unethical insider trading, because obviously top corporate executives have inside information on new products about to appear or other major moves on the horizon.

So the annual salary of business leaders such as Charlie Wilson, then CEO of General Motors, was equal to $5 million in today's money, low pay by modern standards. Wilson made about 30-40 times the annual salary of an average autoworker, far below the ratios of 250-1 or 300-1 seen today...

The contrast between what business does today and what it used to do is stunning.

In a study of hundreds of major U.S. companies, tellingly titled "Profits Without Prosperity," Lazonick found that in the late 1970s and early ‘80s, major U.S. companies ploughed close to half of their profits into expanding their businesses, funding R&D, retraining workers and paying them more, and paid out the other half of profits to shareholders.

But from 2003 to 2012, Lazonick found, shareholders got 91% of corporate profits and growth got only 9%.

That is a disastrous ratio the American economy.


Using employer healthcare costs as one example -- depressing wages combined with rising healthcare costs affects Boeing in a negative way because they're paying the healthcare bill.

money.cnn.com

How does Boeing and all other large businesses and corporations turn this around?

Population Health research says ...

www.cdc.gov

Levels of education, employment, income, and income security in a community create and shape risks and benefits for health, many of which accumulate over the life course.

Working for low wages, working 40 hours a week with little benefits, working 40 hours a week yet still being on food stamps, little or no education ... all drive up employer healthcare costs, with the added problem of passing those costs to employees by raising premiums.

And that's just one example, healthcare.

As stated, Big Business USED TO pass growth and profits (aka prosperity) to workers, but now the profits are pocketed by CEOs and shareholders -- and one of the negative effects being rising employer healthcare costs.

#17 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-11 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Chris Hedges is a broken record. He and Glenn Greenwald should have a debate on which one is most disappointed in everyone other than themselves. Preferably on Mars.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-11 09:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"It would be meaningless to ask those questions without first understanding how money is earned. Because before any dollar can be spent, it must first be earned."

Can you show me the math on that one?

#10 | Posted by snoofy

And this, the asking of this stupid ass question, is what's wrong with the American Left/Progressive/Democrat.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-12 05:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Henry Ford understood it, which is why he raised wages on his employees. Why? So his employees could afford to buy his model-T cars.

And you are stupid enough to believe that.

He did it because..

1. He didnt want to lose his talent base.
2. He knew his employees would buy his cars, thereby enriching him even more.

In the end, it was all still about getting rich.

You liberals, searching for the "I'll give my money away against my best wishes" person is getting ridiculous.

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-12 05:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You liberals, searching for the "I'll give my money away against my best wishes" person is getting ridiculous.

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ

For the millionth time, I'm not a liberal.

I'm way more conservative than you.

And speaking of being conservative, Trump is foregoing the traditional GOP goal of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility ...

Trump plan will drop GOP's traditional goal of balancing budget within 10 years
www.washingtonpost.com

And I don't expect you or any Trump voter or really any rank-and-file Republican to stand on principle or have any sense of moral compass and integrity after bitching about "Obama spending" for 8 years -- just keep voting for amoral clowns who are wrecking this great country and feel good about yourself, m-kay?

#21 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-02-12 06:44 AM | Reply

"Total labor costs decreased because of less turnover."

In 1913, the company hired 52k people to fill 14k positions. Workers were simply walking away when the found a better deal, leading to delays and shut downs that cost the company money.

"As stated, Big Business USED TO pass growth and profits (aka prosperity) to workers, but now the profits are pocketed by CEOs and shareholders -- and one of the negative effects being rising employer healthcare costs."

If you work at Ford today, regardless of position, you make more, often far more, in real dollars than you would have in 1913. Furthermore, it's virtually impossible to compare the modern service-based US economy with the economy of the postwar era that was dominated by namufacturing. As far as I can tell, the large manufacturing concerns are still paying high wages, so your argument wouldn't appear to be with companies like Boeing or Ford. In fact the US has just hit an all time high with respect to median household income, so you're going to have a tough time showing how workers today have it worse than in previous eras.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-12 07:43 AM | Reply

Let me see if I've got this straight....

The conservatives in office have funneled corporate-socialist money to the wealthy at every turn, yet somehow, that is the 'left's fault'? Both previous democratic administrations showed an improved economic situation, while the last 3 republican administrations showed a deteriorating economic situation. Do wingdings ever visit reality, or are we to constantly live in this pious ecstacy of faith based economics?

BTW, Henry Ford was a good person for you wingnuts to emulate. He was a racist, a nazi supporter and a murderer. But, no lie is too big to tell for profit, right?

#23 | Posted by kudzu at 2018-02-12 08:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"Henry Ford understood it, which is why he raised wages on his employees. Why? So his employees could afford to buy his model-T cars."

Henry Ford raised wages so turnover would drop. Ford would spend weeks training an employee only to have another car mfg company steal them.

#24 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-12 10:03 AM | Reply

You liberals, searching for the "I'll give my money away against my best wishes" person is getting ridiculous.

#20 | POSTED BY BOAZ

For the millionth time, I'm not a liberal.

Unless you are willing to give all the money to the 1%, you are a liberal in Bozo world.

#25 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-12 10:04 AM | Reply

The puritopians are the reason we have DJT.

#26 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-12 10:08 AM | Reply

-Chris Hedges is a broken record. He and Glenn Greenwald should have a debate on which one is most disappointed in everyone other than themselves. Preferably on Mars.

#18 | POSTED BY RCADE

lol.... Hedges takes his job as leftist provocateur way seriously. He isn't concerned about moderation or compromise, or even speaking to the rightists; only about bludgeoning the left endlessly about the head until they see things his way. Which, you are right, can become trite and boring in short order.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-12 12:04 PM | Reply

Hedges is like Eric Fromm, author of "The Sane Society", philosophers attempting and succeeding on some levels at defining the root causes of our political and social dysfunction. Like trying to fix education the root causes are multiple and can be complicated. But the net effect is simple and straightforward, the people in control of the money supply are taking all the money. This should surprise no one, as it is happening all over the world. One of our clearly identified weaknesses is Government is controlled by the people funding political campaigns. Another deep truth is that neither party stands for what they publicly pretend to stand for.

Lastly it does not seem credible anymore that anything will ever get fixed by working "within the system", as loyal Democrats continue to pretend. Only mass public protests like we saw in the sixties will have any effect. That requires a narrowing of the agenda. MLK was moving in that direction when he was murdered. He recognized that the flaws in capitalism effected whites as well as blacks and was broadening his planned protests against war on behalf of the entire working class.

#28 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-12 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- mass public protests

Are part of the system.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-12 02:21 PM | Reply

"Both previous democratic administrations showed an improved economic situation, while the last 3 republican administrations showed a deteriorating economic situation. Do wingdings ever visit reality, or are we to constantly live in this pious ecstacy of faith based economics?"

I'm curious how you quantify improved versus deteriorating economies. I have often referred to Bill Clinton as the last fiscally conservative president this country had, and the economy did very, very well under him. But a lot of leading indicators suggest that the current economy is doing even better. There is a difference-Clinton's economy is now a matter of historical record, while Trump's might be a temporary blip, but we won't know that for a while.

And when you say the "last 3 republican administrations," I'm assuming you're counting Trump. If not, you're counting Reagan. And to claim that the economy deteriorated under Reagan would be like claiming the economy prospered under Herbert Hoover. Of course that's also problematic because Trump's economy appears to be strong.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-12 07:55 PM | Reply

Measuring the economic condition of the working population by simply using the GDP is nonsense, because that number includes all unearned (passive) income. As long as you are averaging the income of the 1% into regular income you are exaggerating average incomes. Retail stores are closing right and left and value of Amazon stock exceeds any possible payback, even if Amazon were able to capture 90% of all US consumer sales. The economic snapshot we get is what authorities want us to see. Its ALL BS and its BAD for you.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-12 08:46 PM | Reply

"I'm curious how you quantify improved versus deteriorating economies."

How do you?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-12 08:48 PM | Reply

The policy of perpetual war, taxing workers more and lazy leaches less, dismantling labor unions, offshoring jobs to Canada, Mexico, China and Timbuktu has been supported by BOTH parties for a very long time. When any of these hollow politicians convinces you things will change if you elect him, you are being deceived. Obama didn't do it. Trump has made things markedly worse, just like BushII, and BushI and Reagan, and Clinton. The actual difference being Obama and Trump had promised change favorable to the 99% and the others never bothered. The agenda of the 1%, who provide most campaign money, marches on. Doesn't matter much to 1% which party wins, they get what they want.

All that said, Democrats have a solid track record of appointing better Judges. Gorsuch is an abomination that would never have happened in a country where everyone is equal under the law. He sits on SCOTUS because McConnell held Obama in contempt.

#33 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-12 09:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#33
He was illegally appointed. The first thing the Dems should do when they retake the Senate is to remove Gorsuch from the bench.

#34 | Posted by squinch at 2018-02-13 01:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

He was illegally appointed.

He was not illegally appointed. For clarity's sake, I thought Garland should have gone through the process and felt he met the necessary qualifications to receive a nomination in the first place.

The first thing the Dems should do when they retake the Senate is to remove Gorsuch from the bench.

#34 | POSTED BY SQUINCH

Don't get too excited thinking about it. Reality is it's never going to happen.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-13 01:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As long as you are averaging the income of the 1% into regular income you are exaggerating average incomes."

Which is exactly why you use median income as a key metric instead.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-13 05:57 PM | Reply

"How do you?"

You can start with GDP, which is both an indicators of economic growth and the source of tax revenues. If you're more concerned with distribution, median income is your answer.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-13 05:59 PM | Reply

"Don't get too excited thinking about it. Reality is it's never going to happen."

Is there even a mechanism for doing that? If there were, I would think that every time a new party took over they would simply replace all the judges with those of the new party's choosing.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-13 06:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort