Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

First Solar Bread Oven Takes a Bow
Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Life and Fate

Life and Fate

By Vasily Grossman; Robert Chandler (Introduction by)

more items

 
Report

A Choice of Capitalisms

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 20, 2012
Photo by (CC-BY-ND)

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

In this election, we’re not having an argument that pits capitalism against socialism. We are trying to decide what kind of capitalism we want. It is a debate as American as Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay—which is to say that we have always done this. In light of the rise of inequality and the financial mess we just went through, it’s a discussion we very much need to have now.

The back-and-forth about Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s old company, is part of something larger. So is the inquest into the implications of multibillion-dollar trading losses at JPMorgan Chase. Capitalism can produce wonders. It is also capable of self-destruction, and it can leave a lot of wounded people behind. The trick is to get the most out of what capitalism does well, while containing or preventing the problems it can cause.

To describe this grand debate is not to deny that President Obama’s campaign has some, shall we say, narrower motives in going after Bain. Obama’s lieutenants need to undermine Romney’s claim that his experience in the private equity business makes him just the guy to get our economy back on track.

The Bain conversation has already been instructive. Romney’s friends no less than his foes have had to face the fact that Bain’s purpose was never about job creation. Its goal was to generate large returns to Bain’s partners and investors. It did that, which is why Romney is rich.

Romney wants to focus on the positive side of his business dealings that did create jobs. He wants to brag about the companies Bain helped bring to life, among them Staples, Sports Authority and Domino’s.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
That’s fair enough. But having made an issue of Bain on the plus side, he also has to answer for the pain and suffering—or, as defenders of capitalism like to call it, the “creative destruction”—that some of Bain’s deals left in their wake.

This leads naturally to the question of how creative the destruction wrought by our current brand of capitalism actually is. Since the dawn of the leveraged buyout era three decades ago, many friends of capitalism have questioned whether loading companies with debt as part of these deals is good for companies and for the economy as a whole.

Does this approach cause unnecessary suffering among the employees of the companies in question and the communities that often lose plants and jobs as a result? Sucking pension and health funds dry to aggrandize investors seems less like a creative act than a betrayal of workers who made bargains with their employers in good faith.

More generally, while some of the innovations in the financial sphere have been beneficial to growth, it’s far from clear that this is true of all or even most of them. Some of them helped cause the downturn we are still trying to escape and created incentives for the dangerous risk-taking that led to JPMorgan’s troubles. And there’s little doubt that our new financial system has transferred wealth from other sectors of the economy to the people at the top of the financial business.

Vice President Joe Biden’s speech last week in Youngstown, Ohio, drew wide attention for its criticism of Romney as someone who just doesn’t “get it.” But when Biden moved beyond Romney, he offered an energetic broadside against the new world of finance, and he picked the right venue to make his case: a noble blue-collar town that has been battered by the winds of globalization and economic change.

“You know the difference between having an economy that makes things that the rest of the world wants, and having an economy that is based on financialization of every product,” Biden told his listeners. “You know the difference between an economy ... that’s built on making things rather than on collateralized debt, creative credit-default swaps, financial instruments like subprime mortgages. That’s not how you build an economy.”

Romney, by contrast, is wary of dismantling any of these nifty new Wall Street inventions, one reason why he wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reforms.

We need to have this great national argument. To borrow a term pioneered by Germany’s Christian Democrats, we can try to build a social market. Or we can have an anti-social market. An election is the right venue for deciding which it will be. 

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2012, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Troy Davis, May 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

to the deficit and national debt. At the time, Reagan famously stated, “debt and deficits do not matter, they are irrelevant”.

The alleged economic prosperity was a house of cards based upon false and fraudulent economic policies expressed as “reaganomics”, with its supply side, trickle down, [faux] free market, borrow and spend policies that put off until tomorrow the payment for the prosperity purchased at the time from future generations saddled with that debt.

It is only now, when the GOP [Greed Overwhelming Principle], the political expression of the Military Industrial Complex [MIC], that debt and deficits are decried as being irresponsible and detrimental to the preservation of our constitutional democracy.

Whenever the GOP is in power, such as the regime of Bush II, [the war criminal], the GOP spends like drunken sailors without regard for the debt or deficits with profligate spending on the military and cuts to programs that form the social safety net for common, ordinary, working class, women, minorities, the elder on fixed incomes, and the abjectly poor.

It was the deregulation of the financial institutions begun under Ronald Reagan with his statement, “Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem”,  and completed under Bill Clinton with his signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, followed by the illegal appointment of George W. Bush, Bush II [the war criminal], to office in 2000 by the SCOTUS after GOP operatives engaged in election fraud in Florida, two illegal and immoral, unfunded wars, egregious tax breaks for the wealthy elite and financial derivative fraud [from unregulated wall street crooks] that led us to the precipice of the Great Depression II.

So, the much despised and now infamous Reagan Revolution that sowed the seeds of the disastrous capitalist economic policies and acted as the genesis for the eventual virtual collapse of the US economy because of greedy capitalists, is responsible for our current economic debacle under capitalism in America.

What to do with this lingering demented Reaganites is a real quandary. Perhaps the only hope is to put them in rehabilitation centers for an indeterminate sentence [much like the military effort currently under way in America under the goals of the fascist MIC], to rehabilitate them.

The only other solution would be to cut their callous hearts out of them and give them a heart transplant from someone who does not aspire to fascist ideations under a capitalist economic system so corrupt, so antithetical to democracy as to be as corrosive as acid to our constitutional democracy.

Unfortunately, Cheney [the war criminal] received a heart transplant and it did nothing to open his mind and alleviate the callous, calculating and corruptive ideations of capitalism on his perverse nature.

Report this

By Troy Davis, May 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

OMG, what is to be done with this pathetic archaic, atavistic, and anachronistic “Reaganites”  who still reside in their idyllic bubble wherein truth and reality never enter to disrupt their fantastical devotion to Ronald Wilson Reagan and the revolution that bears his name?

Such people give credit falsely to Reagan for causing the collapse of the former USSR when in fact it was internal financial corruption based upon the capitalist behavior of the Communist elite that accounted for the fall of the USSR.

Some history, although allegedly the USSR was a communist coalition that relied upon Marxist communism as the ruling principle that underpinned the society, nothing could be further from the truth.

The USSR was a distinctly fascist totalitarian state that relied upon military oppression of the populace to maintain itself in power,

While the great mass of the population of the USSR labored under the auspices of Marxist communism, the elite within the social, political and military hierarchy lived capitalist lives.

They garnered the wealth of the USSR into their elitist hands and they lived extraordinarily depraved and corrupt lives dedicated to their own enrichment, [just like their counterparts in capitalist America] and the corruption inherent in such a lifestyle GREED [Get Rich Eviscerating Everything Democratic] being at the heart of the internal collapse.

It was not communist ideology that led to the collapse of the USSR, it was the capitalist behavior of the leaders of the communist party that led to the financial collapse of the USSR from waste, fraud and abuse as those in power were corrupted by the greater and greater accumulation of personal, privatized wealth at the expense of the people in the society exploited by their greed and corruption,

The idea that Ronald Reagan had anything whatsoever to do with the collapse of the former USSR is a myth. More than it is a complete and utter lie. A falsehood concocted by the “Reaganites” to credit Reagan with the collapse and promote his “legacy” as the leader of the fascist Reagan Revolution.

When “Reaganites” extol the virtues of the great economic “advances” of the Reagan Presidency, they conveniently leave out the “cost” of that economic “prosperity” they herald.

Ronald Wilson Reagan added more debt to America in his eight-year term than all other presidents combined who served before him. It was the borrow and spend policies of the Reagan Era that led to the alleged economic prosperity that was revealed to be a complete fraud, based as it was on irresponsible borrow and spend economic policies that added

Report this

By Ed Romano, May 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

This is just my opinion but I have lived under every President since Roosevelt and I think that if Ronald Reagan could have been given an I.Q. test he would have registered just slightly above a moron.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, May 23, 2012 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

Troy Davis:  and you accuse ME of drinking the kool aid??

I hardly know where to start with your last post—
Since mmuch of your criticism is of Ronald Reagan and his era, so I’ll focus my response there:

Though many like yourself have attempted to re-write the ‘80s as an era of greed and excess, the argument just doesn’t hold water.
As the decade progressed we saw the an end to the Cold War, reduced inflation and unemployment, lower taxes with increased tax revenues and a stronger dollar.

These are facts.

(The music was better then, too. That’s an opinion.)

Report this

By Troy Davis, May 23, 2012 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

@oddsox:

No, I am most assuredly NOT mistaken. You have drank the cool aid from the now thoroughly disgraced fascist Reagan Revolution.

That distinctly fascist and undemocratic “revolution” bearing the name of former B actor and fascist sympathizer Ronald Wilson Reagan, relied upon faux capitalistc economic “theories” that 32 years later with the debacle of the Bush II, [the war criminal] administration have been thoroughly discredited.

The theory, relying as it did upon supply side, trickle down [on], [faux] free market ideations has been completely discredited.

The mistake that was made in 1932 after the election of FDR under the auspices of the New Deal program and policies, was the continued reliance upon capitalism as the economic model for the American constitutional democracy.

FDR mistakenly believed [keeping in mind he was a member of the ruling elite, a 1%er] that capitalism could be effectively “regulated” to prevent the most destructive aspects of capitalism.

This proved not to be true and the destructive nature of capitalism with its sole emphasis upon the profit motive generated from GREED [Get Rich Eviscerating Everything Democratic] although reined was allowed to remain as the economic model for America.

Even Ronald Reagan’s VP, Bush I, called “reaganomics” voodoo economics. He was completely correct about it, too.

Under Reaganomics, we experienced the elevation of vulture capitalism expand. Reagan refused to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act, [leading to the the merger and acquistion frenzy that led us to the recreation of so many monopolistic corporations [corporations that now own the mass media in America] and led us to the Bush II, [the war criminal] presidency with two unfunded, illegal, and immoral wars, egregious tax breaks for the wealthy elite, and the financial derivative fraud that threatened to destroy the American economy.

You need to detoxify yourself from the deleterious effect of that “kool aid” you drank, open your mind and heart and acknowledge that destrutive effects of capitalism not only on American democracy but the environment, too.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, May 23, 2012 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Troy Davis, you write:
“Capitalism is completely antithetical to a viable, egalitarian constitutional democracy…”
You’re eloquently mistaken.

True capitalism in truly free markets has fueled American democracy and its success for over 200 years. 
Once we allow it to return, it’ll work for us again .

Both you and Dionne are correct about the trouble being in the “type” of capitalism.

The Crony Capitalism model doesn’t work (see today’s Facebook IPO fallout, just the latest example) nor does an over-taxed, over-regulated quasi-socialist design.

Minimal regulation—just enough necessary to insure fair competition—is the key.
But it has to be enforced. 
That’s where we’ve gone wrong.
(referring you back to my post below)

Report this

By Troy Davis, May 23, 2012 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

GOP minority leader Mitch McConnell is accusing president Obama of trying to “destroy capitalism”.

There are numerous problems with that assertion not the least of which is the falsity of the accusation.

However, implicit within the accusation is the assertion that democracy and capitalism are equitable.

The idea seems to be that if economic model of capitalism were to be eliminated democracy itself would be under attack.

The absurdity of such an assertion is self-evident but it does speak volumes about the mindset of the GOP, the political expression of the Military Industrial Complex [MIC], that quintessentiall elitist, corporate [fascist] entity that relies upon capitalism as the economic model under which democracy is under assault.

Not only democracy but the earth itself via the exploitation of every natural resource on the planet reduced to its profit motive for multinational corporate [fascist] interests, is under assault and cannot survive the decimation of the planet.

Capitalism is completely antithetical to a viable, egalitarian constitutional democracy in which the will of the people, as expressed in the preamble to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself can be sustainde under such an assault from capitalism.

A new economic model is order. One that does not rely upon, and promote the exploitation for profit of every natural resource on the planet to the detriment of the ability to sustain life on the planet.

Report this
who'syourdebs's avatar

By who'syourdebs, May 23, 2012 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

Maybe it’s more a question of degree than it is differing “types” of capitalism. Survival of the planet (as we know it) depends on a scaling back of capitalism’s excesses and the development of alternatives, like co-ops and communal housing configurations. These innovations could support sustainability by providing products and food supplies within individual communities, and allow the democratic apparatus to work organically, without the undue intrusion of corporate power from above, to correct the many problems we face as a nation, as individuals, and as global citizens.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, May 23, 2012 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

Romney’s right to want to repeal Dodd-Frank.
It, like the Volker Rule, favors large financial institutions over the smalls.

But at the same time we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall. 
Support is wide-ranging, from Elizabeth Warren to John McCain.

Then we break up the gigi-banks using anti-trust action.  Growing support there, too.
Add John Huntsman to the list, see below:
http://open.salon.com/blog/oddsox/2011/10/10/too_big_to_fail_too_big_to_begin_with

Report this

By terry p, May 22, 2012 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe we should all vote for Romney and get it over with. That way over the next 4 to 8 years, the .01%ers could get the rest of the assets. “WE” the people, after experiencing billionaires gone wild after the Romney deregulating party, would finally wake up and shit can capitalism for good.

To bad there can’t be a mixture of socialism and capitalism. But, the winner take all attitude seems to tell the whole story of the ‘American Dream’.

It’s too late now, but Obama should have punished the banksters when he had the chance. Now, his only hope is to suck up to them which is what his last 4 years was all about. He opened the door much wider for the private equity raiders, like Bain Capital, who scheme to fire people, cut benefits, and duck taxes while the 99% always foot the bill.

Read “The Web of Debt” By Ellen Brown for more details on conniving banksters.

tp:?]

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 22, 2012 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

Felicity:

If I may, I’ll give my opinion that your comment is concise and perfectly astute.

My primary concern has to do with the best method of assuring a “Lesser evil” kind of Capitalism. I have the apparently unpopular opinion that voting for Democrats is the best method of assuring a “Lesser evil” kind of Capitalism.

Report this

By Schlee, May 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

*******

We need the kind of capitalism where worker/voters control 99% of everything, and where financiers and the 1% learn to make do with much, much less.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY


*******

Report this

By Tracie, May 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only kind of capitalism we’re seeing today is the corrupted kind. The old beliefs that Republicans are capitalists, Democrats are socialists have been blown to bits. Yesterday’s exagerrated welfare queens have been surpassed by today’s very real welfare kings, who are not only cashing the checks, but writing them too.

So, if both major parties are feeding from the same trough, what’s the difference? There are idiots in both the private and public sector. The difference is that those in the public sector are expected to have skin in the game. Seems appropriate, since they’re dealing with public money. We taxpayers have the right to access information on our school teachers, etc. But, when we hand over public services to private companies, the game shifts, and the public becomes just another customer. To save a little money up front, we pay a helluva price in the end.

As a matter of fact, it appears that the taxpayer’s role is to provide insurance for the reckless behavior of banks too big to fail. There’s no worries if they screw up, we’ve got their backs. If we’re lucky, they may choose to trickle down a few jobs here and there.

Report this

By felicity, May 21, 2012 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ - The question may have been asked, “Do you
believe in the primary principle of capitalism,
creative destruction?” May have gotten, along with
scratched heads, different poll results.

Adam Smith, probably the ‘inventor’ of the damn thing,
repeatedly warned of the excesses that capitalism was
bound to lead to. Successful capitalists and their
brain-dead supporters, of course, abhor his solution -
diligent government over-sight to prevent the bound-to-
happen ‘excesses.’

Report this

By balkas, May 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

i think that one shld not compare socialism with capitalism; unless capitalism is equated with americanism or personal
supremacism.
socialism is nothing but an ideology and we’d know how [un]well it wld function only if it is implemented fully in daily life of
all people.
so far we’ve had just rudimentary socialism or an admixture of socialism, nazism, fascism, bellicosity, exploitation,
theocracy, abuses of all kinds, and personal supremacism.
after all, even baathist iraq or libyan governance was more socialist than most lands; and even iranian theocracy is more
socialist than u.s, kuwait, or even bolivia. 
==
curioso appears, that nazism or americanism may eventually become idyllicly communist or socialist; in which each person
wld obtain everything s/he wld need for a good living.
however, not until personal supremacists pare dwn the pop from 7billion to, say, one billion or fewer people.
==
If that is not the plan, then, how else can one explain actions of ‘our leaders’?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 21, 2012 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

A Gallup Poll of January 26-27, 2010 asked the question: “Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of each of the following? Capitalism was one of the following. 61% of those polled had a “positive image” of Capitalism and 31% had a “negative image” of Capitalism. Note that the question did not ask, “Do you ‘believe, or not believe, in Capitalism,” only do you have a positive or negative image of Capitalism. Personally, I do not believe in Capitalism, which is I suppose something beyond having a negative image of Capitalism. I have no fear of offering an unpopular opinion, so here goes… I believe Capitalism is an evil. I fancy myself an idealist, but I’m also a realist. Let’s face it folks, short of an all encompassing economic holocaust, Capitalism is going to be around for a while, and the enlightened few, such as myself, who feel that Capitalism is an evil, aren’t going to see Capitalism’s demise anytime soon.

Dionne intentionally avoids the question of should we, or should we not practice Capitalism. He writes: “In this election, we’re not having an argument that pits capitalism against socialism.” Some would argue that this election pits Capitalism against Socialism but that “some” would be morons. Democrats are Capitalists and Republicans are Capitalists. Find me a politician or public personality who describes himself as a Social Democrat who advertises his or her self as someone who wants to put an end to Capitalism. I dare say one would be hard put to find such a person who possesses any political clout at all. Perhaps in some intellectual circles there are individuals advocating putting an end to Capitalism, but I dare say one would be hard put to find one with that objective, or the courage to state that objective, outside of a few small, irrelevant, and passé political cliques.

Given that the question of whether we will practice Capitalism is a moot point. Dionne asks the proper question. “What kind of Capitalism do we want to have?” Given that I have courageously stated my opinion that Capitalism is an evil, when it comes to the question of “What kind of Capitalism do we want to have.” I’ll answer, “the ‘lesser evil’ kind of Capitalism.” smile

Report this

By 3am mystic, May 21, 2012 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Two thousand years from now when someone writes “The Rise and Fall of the American Empire”, the greatest puzzle to the author will be how the common working people, even many working poor, supported politicians who kept the boot of unchecked capitalism on their neck.

The hypocritical, twisted nature of much of our society can be seen in how “good” religious people seethe with hate toward anyone who just happens to have the “socialist” label plastered to them, then turn a blind eye toward CEOs who are led off in handcuffs or whining about not being paid enough.

Report this

By Ed Romano, May 21, 2012 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

Dionne says that in this election “WE” are trying to decide what kind of capitalism we want. I imagine I am one of a lot of folks who don’t like being lumped under the umbrella of “WE”, because I personally don’t want ANY form of capitalism. I think the system has evidently passed the time when it served any useful purpose, if it ever did, and has now become a positive mill stone around the neck of humanity. I would hope that more and more people can cut through the myriad problems and issues that face us and concentrate on getting this monster into a cage.

Report this

By Richard Brunelle, May 21, 2012 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hoo boy, the CDU. That’s certainly a group we should
emulate. And definitely a guaranteed path to electoral
success.

Report this
Airborne855's avatar

By Airborne855, May 21, 2012 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

This election is a choice between two fools and madmen. Romney is stupid enough to believe in a religious fraud called Mormonism. Obama is busy killing people worldwide while claiming to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, who never killed anyone and commanded his disciples to follow his example. Evidently, Romney wants a chance to kill people, too.

Report this

By balkas, May 21, 2012 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

american capitalism is part of the americanism; ie, american ideology on
which everything runs: schooling, its brand of capitalism, govts,
advertising, entertainment, arms manufacture, foreign policy, greater-
lesser personal freedoms, warfare, wars for drugs-poverty-ignorance,
etc.
so, dionne wld have been by far more elucidatory if he had stated that
THE AMERICANISM [a twig of personal supremacism] can be wonderful
and at the same time very harmful.
i wonder then if e.j.d. is waging education by way of deception or own
unawareness of the fact i just posited?

Report this

By Louis Proyect, May 21, 2012 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

I wonder how much money E.J. Dionne makes writing for the centrist Washington Post. Clearly he deserves every penny trying to convince people who come here primarily to read Chris Hedges to read his craven apologetics for the rich.

Report this

By docwells7, May 21, 2012 at 5:51 am Link to this comment

Biden should be careful talking about credit default
swaps and other questionable trading strategies.  I
believe the Obama financial advisors were the
architects of this style of investment in the late 90s. 
Pot meet Kettle…

Report this

By rtb61, May 21, 2012 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

The Democrats had their chance to show some honesty and decency, they could have run a challenger against Obama in the primaries, instead they sent one big screw you to the true progressives and liberals and presented them with a lie, choose between the betrayer and the vulture capitalist.
Another choice could have been made in the primaries and that choice was stolen from progressives and liberals, no at least they can fire the betrayer to remind all future betrayers what awaits them, a single term in office.
You don’t have to choose Mitt Romney you can choose to fire Barack Obama for betraying so many progressive and liberal promises.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, May 20, 2012 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

So what your saying is that we’re fighting over who gets to slice up the pie, not the
size of the pieces…

So then it doesn’t really matter, who gets to slice up the pie, because the size of
the pieces will remain the same…..

There will be one huge piece of pie for the 1 percenters, actually, 99% of the pie,
and one teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy, little bity piece of pie for the rest of us….

So I suppose from a political perspective, it might make a difference, who makes
the cut…...But from a practical point of view….from those eating whats left of the
pie, it doesn’t….

Report this

By Jack, May 20, 2012 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As usual, Dionne is as correct as a mainstream columnist is allowed to get. The real point, however, is that it only makes a difference around the edges. Obama has clearly governed like a Republican. He preserved the super rich tax breaks, he sheltered and essentially immunized the torturers and the illegal wiretappers, he took real heath care reform off the table and protected the obscene profits of the private insurance and drug companies, he made4 sure that not a single bankster on Wall Street was indicted for the massive frauds that caused the 2008 meltdown, and he made sure that all of those banksters were restored to full profitability while the middle class suffered. This without even getting into his support of the military industrial complex and corrupt secrecy, and prosecution of those who expose government malfeasance, and erosion of civil and privacy rights. No, this election is not about whose version of capitalism prevails: it is about how fast our current plutocracy continues its descent into fascism.

Report this

By TransWarp101, May 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment

What is capitalism?  Don’t citizens as human beings come first?  If citizens came
first instead of capital, workers would be treated as citizens instead of disposable
cogs in an inhuman machine.

The 1% preach capitalism as a kind of magical thinking to the unwashed masses as
justification for the 1%‘s theft and destruction of democracy.  Plus, as the TBTF
bankers are fond of blackmailing us:  If you take the bankers down, the bankers
will make sure the rest of America hurts much worse than it does now. 

Baine, Romney, the Republican party think workers deserve no rights, no unions,
no respect.  The Democrats pretend they might recognize some rights for
workers, while failing miserably not only to extend existing rights, but rolling over
as Republicans use raw power to strip workers of their rights. 

For example, we have Wisconsin Governor Walker as the rampaging Republican. 

While Pres. Obama as leader of the Democrats refuses to stand up for Wisconsin
workers struggling in the face of extremist billionaires and their pawns actively
crushing workers’ existing rights.

Workers are humans.  It is their work that makes the billions that make the
billionaires.  Neither party sees workers as human beings.  In effect, the
Democratic and Republican parties are integral to metastasizing cancer capitalism,
allowing their billionaire benefactors to drain the life out of America and into their
Swiss bank accounts.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook