American Politics: A Reality Check

It seems we see almost all the the time on social media. Some group or another is trying to sell us on the concept that America is on the fast track toward socialism, fascism, communism, or some other "ism". They usually produce a list of greatly distorted "facts", coupled with a picture of Hitler, Marx, or some other nefarious "villain" from the authoritarian pantheon of history.

In truth, that's not "facts" they're peddling.  If you bother to look who's behind these sponsored posts, you'll usually find that they're some group looking to build support for some issue, bill, or agenda, or sell a book, and not uncommonly, looking to part you from some of your money.

Of course, social media being what it is, people tend to simply accept what they see on the surface without doing much (or any) research and pass it on. Their objective is to use our first impression and what we want to believe (actual facts aside) and to be "click bait". We do their marketing for them.  We've been conditioned to associate certain images, phrases, and images with particular emotions. We see a hammer and sickle, we automatically think Stalin or gulags. We see a swastika, and it's Hitler and concentration camps.

Today's political marketers have learned to link their message to those images. If you're conservative, an image of Obama or Hillary will almost automatically trigger an image of Hitler or Stalin. If you're liberal, that same image may make you think of the "Second Coming". It's all about controlling the message and as psychologists will tell you, as humans tend to react best to images.  

Nowadays, we're being conditioned (just like Pavlov's dog) to react a certain way every time we see or hear the terms "socialism", Communism, Nazism, or Fascism. If you're someone who's inquisitive and not willing to accept things at face value (as I am), you want to know why. You want to know who is behind the piece and what they're trying to gain.  

Of course, that requires some thinking for yourself, which, sadly, isn't as common as it once was. The main reason, as I'm sure you know,  is that education has repeatedly been dumbed down. Students are no longer taught critical thinking skills. Instead, they are taught to memorize what's presented to them and then to regurgitate it back in the form of a "standardized" test. It's no wonder students "graduate" from high school functionally two or three grades below where they should be!

It's not unusual for students with a high school diploma to be reading at a 10th grade level. Their math skills aren't much better. When it comes to their knowledge of history, civics, the sciences, or literature, it's pathetic  Surveys have repeatedly shown that the United States performs toward the bottom among industrialized nations when it comes to reading, math, and science. 

The world academic benchmark, set by the Programme for International Student Assessment (or PISA), ranks 30 of the 64 other industrial nations ahead of the U.S. academically, and this wasn't a one off. It's consistent.  "Why?" you might ask yourself.  Given the amount of money we spend on education and teachers, we shouldn't be ranked alongside second tier countries, and you would be right. 

In my opinion, it's because an ignorant populace is a populace easily led. We've often heard the old maxim that employers want employees just smart enough to the job but not smart enough to question their bosses. Well, imagine that from a political perspective--- creating voters just smart enough to follow along but not smart enough to question their leaders. 

People are usually so preoccupied just trying to get by in their increasingly chaotic "life" , they have no time or interest in researching what's actually happening (even if they knew where to look), not to mention confused, frustrated, or angry by the constant partisan bickering and crisis "de jure". 

Most just want to turn on some mindless "reality" show or watch a mediocre sitcom with its canned laughter track. Sadly, most individuals so brain numb from merely surviving the daily grind they fail to recognize all the subtle and not so subtle political and social messaging in the shows and commercials aimed directly at them. It's called "programming" for a reason you know.

America, as almost everyone knows, is no longer the "America" of their youth. It's changed, and not for the better. Corporations literally own both political parties and their politicians. While both operate behind a self-constructed image that they are the one and only "true" protectors of all that's good and righteous, they serve their corporate masters at our expense. 

In case you haven't noticed, the mindset in Washington, as well as in state capitals and city halls has changed. They no longer see themselves as our employees "hired" to represent our interests. They view themselves as our superiors; ours "betters". They represent themselves and their friends (who are their "friends"? We'll get to that shortly), but it will suffice to say that at this point, the relationship between (s)elected officials and us is akin to that of master and a serf with us playing the latter role. 

Their lobbyists openly write the legislation and shepherd it through committee after committee, until it finally becomes law. The only conflict, which is hidden behind partisan banners, is between competing corporate interests. These corporations fund their campaigns. Their fill the coffers of their so-called "leadership" PACs., create front groups to funnel money through, and underwrite hit pieces on their opponents. 

Corporations don't see nations. They see economic zones with governments serving as their managers. It doesn't matter if they wear blue ties or red ones as long as they do as they're told. They dictate domestic and foreign policy, which includes the use of the military to force open access to markets or gain control over resources and assets. Control is, after all, the name of the game. 

Corporations are not democracies, nor are they intended to be democracies. They are, by their very nature, a type of dictatorship. The workers don't get to vote on what they want to do, how much they get paid, or time off. You do the job or you either quit or get fired. Unions give you---the worker---a little more say in your job, but ultimately, it's do as you're told or leave.

The founder of modern Fascism, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, described "Fascism" as a integration between government and big business; a hand-in-glove relationship (hand in mailed fist might be a better analogy). Fascism borrows from both the Left and Right, depending on a country's history, traditions, laws, and values.

This is why Italian Fascism was different from that of Hungary or Romania, which were different from the fascism of Germany (yes, Nazism is a form of fascism), which in turn differed from that of Spain or Argentina (or later, in various post-WWII South American, Asian, and Middle Eastern governments which we installed after overthrowing their elected governments). Remember, it's about control. 

Fascism can have a centralized leadership, as it did in Germany for instance, or it can have a broader committee style leadership as Italy or Spain did.  Under Communism, there is literally no private anything---homes, businesses, banks, energy; nothing.  The state controls all. Under 'socialism" (which, by the way, has never actually existed), the workers or public own the means of production and distribution. 

Under Fascism, private ownership exists despite social media posts to the contrary. However, wages are regulated. Unions are either eliminated, nationalized, or effectively assimilated by the company as they are now. The social safety net, interestingly, is often typically enhanced. The government may outsource functions it once handled, including social services, to some anonymous corporation which doesn't always have to follow the same rules. The police become militarized. There is also the deployment of a massive national surveillance system, which provides the framework for a eventual police state. 

Additionally, the government/corporate partnership seek to weaken the opposition. They do this by acquiring control of the media and fomenting distention. They use the media to introduce "acceptable" behavior or thought while vilifying others. This includes political parties, ideologies, and social movements or individuals they perceive as dangerous. They also infiltrate various groups and work to either weaken or destroy them. 

Along the same lines, they pit groups against each other through manufactured events. Using the media, they invent or play up stories to increase hostilities and suspension. The idea is to create a volatile social situation or crisis whereby the public will, at some point, demand martial law to restore order, which, naturally, they will be more than happy to do. 

With Communism, private ownership of guns aren't permitted except by special permission. Under Fascism, there is a tendency to restrict gun ownership (unless elimination is possible) such as through mandatory registration and restricting the type of guns an individual can own. Despite the urban myth to the contrary, the Nazis didn't strip guns from the population. In fact, it was the opposite.

The majority socialist Weimar government of Post-WWII Germany, with pressure from the powerful Communist faction, greatly curtailed the private ownership of guns after the "Great War". The Nazis, however, restored private ownership of guns to most Germans with the exception of criminals, Jews, Gypsies, and those deemed as "politically unreliable" such as Communists, anarchists, socialists, and pro-democracy individuals.

While I'm at it, let's dispel another popular myth. Fascism was never anti-Bible, anti-Christian or even anti-religion. In fact, they saw organized religion as another useful tool to  to control the population. The Nazis tried introducing something called they called "Positive Christianity" which purged or downplayed all Jewish references in the Bible. They even invented a "Aryan" Jesus complete with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nevertheless, it tended to meet with limited success by ordinary Germans.

The Nazis did, however, prohibit religions like Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Pentecostals because of their "anti-state" and/or pacifist beliefs. However, the average German continued on as before, with some being Protestant (mainly Lutheran) and others Catholic.  Even the belt buckle of German soldiers had the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God is With Us) on it.  Communism, on the other hand, is officially atheist while democratic socialism is religion is considered a matter of personal choice. 

Since the 1930's, the United States has flirted with a limited form of "socialism" such as limited  regulation of businesses and a taxpayer sponsored public safety net like social security, unemployment, women's right to vote or own property, a safe work environment, the right to organize and strike, and imposing child labor laws, a standardized 40 hour work week. Although we take these for granted, all of these were actually once considered "socialist" by business leaders who aggressively campaigned against them.   

Since the 1950's, union membership has declined from 35% of the overall workforce in 1954 to 10% in 2024 as many of issues unions campaigned for became federal law and more states (especially in the South) adopted "Right to Work" laws as 25% of  Americans households live paycheck to paycheck (that figure is 29% for low income families) and 31% have no savings set aside for emergencies.44% can't cover a $1000 emergency. The two groups most affected were Millennials and GenZ at 34% each.  Employers  cut or eliminated benefits due to either rising costs or to improve profits margins while good paying jobs were sent overseas. As an aside, did you know that the United States is the only industrial nation without a dedicated Labor Party? 

We all know our Republic is all but a shell of its former self; an illusion. Most academics agree that we've become a Corporatocracy (a neo-fascist blending of state and big business), led by an elite group of very wealthy individuals and corporations. Some call them an oligarchy while others refer to them as a kleptocracy or plutocracy.  To the 99% on the bottom, it's all semantics. The top 10% control about 67% of household wealth in the United States. The top 1% of that control roughly 30%. 

The real question is what do you see? The strong vibrant America of your youth or an America becoming controlled more and more by an all powerful centralized state as it acquires private property and all manner of businesses, including banks, brokerages firms, the media, oil companies, and the collapse of Wall Street? If so, that could be Communism.

If you see an increase in government regulation or nationalization of key strategic businesses, an expanding social safety net, growing unions, worker co-ops, and more public input, then maybe you're seeing democratic socialism.

Perhaps you see a growing unregulated corporate control over government; a revolving door between government officials and big business; distrust of the media, faith in elections; a weakening public impact on government, and the growth of a surveillance state, that could be neo Fascist Corporatocracy. As for me, I see an America in serious trouble and in desperate need of patriots.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 . 

As Union membership has fallen, the top 10% have beengetting a larger share of income

Labor Unions in the United States

Corporatocracy

Wealth inequality in the United States

Bankrate's 2025 Annual Emergency Savings Report

Nearly a quarter of U.S. households live paycheck to paycheck, report finds

Can We Restore Our Republic?

 

The Ancient Romans had an expression which said that “time was fleeting’. The "Eternal Empire" as Rome was called existed little more than the proverbial blink of an eye in retrospect despite lasting well over a thousand years. One thing for sure is that time is fluid. It has a nasty habit of becoming the past before we've had the opportunity to reflect on its present. 

Perhaps America's fate will be similar to Ancient Rome's. It too was ruled by two powerful political blocs --- the Optimates and the Populates --- which were the approximate equivalent of the Republicans and Democrats respectively, and in turn were dominated by Rome's powerful and wealthy elites. But, after 482 years, the Republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship although the facade of a Republic was allowed to continue for a few more decades. 

What happened to Rome (and indeed, to most of History's republics) was not so much the result of an external threat, although that also happened, be it in the form of "illegal migration" or the near perpetual wars Rome fought throughout its history. Rome's fatal weakness , however, was internal. It was the corruption, greed, arrogance and incompetence of its ruling class, which by definition, shouldn't have existed in a Republic had it functioned properly as ours once did. 

It was partly the diversion of resources to serve the needs of the wealthy rather than the poor. It was the undermining of Rome's middle class, the backbone of the Republic, through over taxation. It was Rome's slowly decaying infrastructure as its attention focused on putting out fires throughout the edges of its empire. Even Rome's social safety net became too great of a burden. Rome also suffered under the weight of slavery while we bear the weight of a different form of slavery --- economic debt. 

Eventually, even the old maxim attributed to the poet Juvenal about keeping the populace occupied with "bread and circuses" to avoid civil revolt could no longer hold the empire together (Emperor Trajan exiled Juvenal for his comment. Apparently speaking truth to power was just as dangerous then as now). The idea was to keep the masses fed and pre-occupied in order to maintain power. 

Of course, our modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" being entertainment (includes sports, video games, movies, the internet, etc.) and consumerism with just enough media propaganda to keep the masses frustrated and confused. We’ve been transformed from citizens into consumers whose “loyalties” are to products. 

For the average Roman, there was no sudden "thud" as the Republic collapsed. The fall of nations are rarely sudden or dramatic except in time of war or some unexpected economic implosion (unexpected to all but those paying attention). The fall is typically gradual with growing peaks and valleys. Roads or bridges aren't repaired timely, or the repairs are of inferior quality. 

The quality of education becomes worse. In place of innovation, a mentality of "good enough" develops. Goods seem often shoddy quality. Crime is increasingly out of control. Taxes seem to spiral ever upward but with less and less to show for it. The last thing to be affected, however, is almost always the military. Even when Soviet Russia imploded, its military remained strong to the last. 

Ironically, the last to experience the collapse are those at the top. They're so insulated from reality they have little concept of the seismic political shift occurring under their feet. They believe that the same old platitudes and appeasements will keep working (ie: "let them eat cake") and allow them weather out the storms. They construct structures to protect them and to keep power in their hands while we’re left feigning for ourselves. 

America is no longer a Republic. Like ancient Rome, the myth is still being perpetuated by the elites to keep the masses pacified. They believe that if the illusion is allowed to continued, they can hang onto power (and wealth) a little longer. They know intuitively that at some point the masses will wake up to the scam being played out under their noses, but hope they'll be long gone or fully insulated by then. 

Unlike Rome which, after a series of social upheavals, transformed from a Republic into a militaristic dictatorship under a single powerful leader, America has turned into an Oligarchy pretty peacefully. But to be more specific, we've become a Corporatocracy, which I suspect is a term that some of you have never heard of before (unless you’re regular readers of A/O). 

A Corporatocracy is quite simply a form of government controlled by either corporations or corporate interests, which, in turn, is a type of plutocracy or rule by the wealthy. Who in their right mind can deny that Washington, as well as every state capitol or local city hall isn't dominate by a wealthy few? Money buys power. Power makes money. 

Washington has near 15,000 lobbyists representing corporate interests. These lobbyists provide the money (and perks) needed to make elections happen. They ensure that those who cooperate remain in office and those who don't are defeated. These same lobbyists "help" write legislation either directly or through so-called experts they retain. In a nutshell we actually have are two political cliques who are beholden to competing corporate interests (think of it as Coke vs Pepsi arrangement but cooperate to keep out any competitors). 

Under a Corporatocracy, which literally owns both parties, political outsiders such as third parties or Independents (who, by the way, are the country's largest political bloc) are keep out of any debates and off ballots whenever possible. They also use the media, which they own, to degrade, humiliate, or simply ignore any challenger. Thus, voters are virtually forced to pick between one of two pre-determined and pre-approved choices. 

The goal of a Corporatocracy is to remove any and all barriers which interfere with corporate profits. Through their control of government which includes not just those selected (err, I mean "elected") but also the governmental bureaucracy itself via appointments and the judicial system to provide the appearance of legitimacy. They  use "think tanks" to direct domestic and foreign policy and the media to manipulate public opinion. 

Domestically, the only acceptable form of chaos is the one which is managed. Take for example what's currently happening here in States. In addition to the COVID virus, we're witnessing BLM and Antifa running amuck. We're subtly being encouraged to be "afraid". 

The COVID virus was sold as some amorphous death cloud lingering around the next corner while neo-Marxist BLM and Antifa anarchists are planning to impose Communism (or worse, “socialism”) on unsuspecting Americans. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters are nothing more than better dressed versions of Nazis and Fascist! 

The truth of matter is that both BLM and Antifa has used high profile incidents which should never have happened and turned them into political events. It's also true that BLM has a strong racist bent to it and Antifa behaves more like the old Nazi "Brownshirts" they allegedly opposed (as an aside, the Communists of that era had their own group of thugs known as the "Red Front". They fought the Brownshirts blow for blow). 

Social order is a precondition for capitalism and democracy to function properly, and that includes Corporate capitalism. Normally, the type of chaos we experienced from Antifa and BLM would have the ruling class quaking in their Gucci's, but it's not and I'll tell you why. 

First, there will be no "socialism" or "Communism" takeover despite what political front groups tell us on social media. Neither are conducive to the neo-fascist environment that a Corporatocracy needs to operate in. Both Communism and socialism require total government ownership of everything, and that ain't gonna happen. 

The elites will never willingly surrender their wealth or control over government and the economy, but they will use the fear of these political system as a bogeymen to scare the people into demanding that the government "do something" to protect them. Historically, people have always been willing to sacrifice freedom for security. 

In 1933, it was the Reichstag fire which Hitler used to push through the "Enabling Act" which ultimately gave him near absolute power in Germany. But before that it took a volatile economy, a political climate where the use of scapegoats were plausible, a series of assassinations, a high crime rate, mounting external threats and finally the fire itself to make the Enabling Act possible (not to mention the subsequent trial of three Bulgarian communists and a 24 year old Jewish Dutch Communist willing to admit to setting the fire to bring it to a head). They each played their part of (to borrow from Lenin) "useful idiots" just as BLM , Antifa, and their supporters are now playing their part. 

America is being transformed. There is absolutely no doubt about it. That transformation is as profound as Rome's was from a Republic to a militaristic dictatorship. There will be no socialism or Communism in our future nor a return of our cherish democratic and Constitutional Republic, at least not in the near term, and not as long as the Oligarchy remains in power. Our best hope is to demand changes which transfers the balance of power back to the people. 

How? I talking about term limits; a level political playing field that allows all parties and individuals the same ballot access and inclusion in debates; ending Citizens United and taking unlimited corporate money out of politics; ending corporate participation in writing legislation; allowing nationwide voter referendums; ranked choice voting; equal ballot access; mandating the former government officials not be allowed to engage in lobbying directly or indirectly for a minimum of ten years after they leave office; voter approval for tax, fee, rate, or salary increases of elected officials. 

Lastly, require that all elected officials resign from whatever party they're a member of once they are sworn in. The only loyalty should be to the people they were elected to represent. Only then can we restore America back to the People.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

Corporatocracy


The U.S. is an Oligarchy? The Research, Explained


Lobbying Data Summary


The 20 companies and groups that spent the most money to influence lawmakers

 

 

The Case of the Vanishing Republic: The Morphing of America’s Democracy

 

It seems that the Right is perpetually speaking about Democrats leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. With Donald Trump in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "The Donald"  with Hitler and Republicans with fascists (hence the thinly vailed “No King” protests). It seems that neither side is familiar with history.

First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist", Communist or anything else that requires them to surrender their wealth or power to the State. Secondly, the two party system is a farce. Wall Street owns both parties and they make no secret of it. What we see on a daily basis is political “kabuki” theater.  

The only real difference between the two parties is the two competing corporate cliques. Citizens United has ensured corporate control of the political system. It has put political reform all but out of reach of the average American. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, leaving voters with the illusion of choice. 

As for fascism, it was (and remains) a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business. In the past, the latter assumed a junior role, but nowadays, we all know Wall Street wouldn’t go for that.  

Actual socialism, which remains an abstract idea since it has never actually been implemented, means that the people essentially own everything. Under actual socialism  political power and the control of wealth would be in the hands of the working class. Businesses would be typically employee owned and run while others, particularly essential businesses, would be controlled or heavily regulated by the State.

Nevertheless, I don't see Wall Street or their K Street lobbyists allowing anything like that to happen do you? Certainly not after the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheon's" decisions by the Supreme Court which gave them carte blanche to the halls of power and the public trough! 

What passes for "socialism" today is an admixture of capitalism, democracy, and a welfare state comprised of social programs  under the heading of "Democratic Socialism", which is common in Scandinavia and places like Germany and Netherlands. Think of it as "capitalism with a friendly face".  Of course, that hasn’t kept some authoritarian states from usurping the term. It’s like North Korea calling itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Nevertheless, despite high taxes (especially on the wealthy and corporations), the democratic socialist form of government have proven to be quite popular with the masses, with practically everything being subsidized. However, it requires everyone to pitch in and contribute back into the system. But when you have a mass of people who draw on the system without contributing to it, it fails, which is what seems to be happening in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.  

Under Communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, businesses or corporations. The State owns everything. Everyone works for the State. The State is everything. Do you see corporations like Google, Lockheed Martin, Exxon or people like Zuckerman, Musk, Bezos, or Buffett  surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is America is morphing into? The answer is a Corporatocracy, which is a de facto form of neo-fascism.

Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, was more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically speaking, fascism isn’t stagnant. It borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the conservative Right, including militarism. It grafts various national traditions and values to its cause as needed and jettisons whatever is no longer of use.  Corporatism is, if nothing else, adaptable. It's objective, however, is always corporate control plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the lesser partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and masses. It's objective is to serve the rich.

Under a Corporatocracy, there is little to no strong middle class; certainly not in the way we're used to. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. There is a two tier justice system. One for us and another for the elites. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts if we were truly becoming “socialist”?  

As an aside, some less informed individuals and groups (and few who should know better) want to convince you that Nazism was a Leftwing “socialist” movement because they used the term “socialist” in their name. Hitler’s definition of the term was that of a community of likeminded Germanic people (aka “Volk”) with a shared culture, values, and heritage. Also, unlike communism or socialism, it was strictly nationalistic, not international.

Consider this too, while unions exist in a Corporatocracy, they are weak and fairly ineffective. A far cry from the unions of old. Their primary purpose is to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses.  They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions, and hours.  

So, in reality, we are morphing into something akin to a neo-fascist corporate State where we see the top 10% owning 52% of all wealth. The ultimate goal is to diminish the autonomy of the individual, as well as our economic and political power, while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite. 

In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as our overseer and corporations as our masters. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation with a single government. A digital ID will serve as our chains. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects with the legacy media selling a siren’s song.  

Under corporatocracy we can expect national governments become ever more pervasive in their role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker and more dependent on the federal government.  This role also enables corporations an ever growing access to taxpayer money to acquire resources domestically and globally while at the same time shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government.  

They can also use the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar.  In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.”. In short, war and the threat of war is good for business.

Il Duce was also talked about was the concept (novel for his time) of what we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be they natural resources or national resources for the sake of the bottom line. It artificially stimulates the economy, masks actual unemployment numbers, and allows for near unlimited deficit spending. Sound familiar? We get crumbs and they call it a “victory”.

As an aside, what did Mussolini think of socialism? After all, his father, Alessandro,  was a prominent Italian socialist and Benito started off his political career as a socialist. This was his opinion, "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail".

So, when someone starts complaining about America becoming "socialist" or "Communist", remember that famous line from movie "The Princess Bride" as uttered by the swordsman Inigo Montoya (played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".  

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

The Rich 1% Own Almost Half the World's Wealth & 9 Other Mind Blowing Facts About Wealth Inequality

 

Why Is There A Labor Day?

 

Welcome to the last “official” long weekend holiday of the summer!  It typically marks the closing of pools, the beginning of the school year, and the last quick vacation. But what is Labor Day really? Simply a day marking the end of summer or something more?

 Labor Day was established on June 28, 1894 and reluctantly signed into law by President Grover Cleveland, making the first Monday of each September a federal day set aside to celebrate the efforts of organized labor and the gains---financial and social--- it has made on behalf of  organized labor and the working class. Before then, there was something of  a “unofficial” day set by various unions, the date varying from place to place.

 It bears mentioning that organized labor, and those pushing for a day of recognition for organized labor were regarded as “socialist”, and indeed, they were. Most of those who belonged to labor unions were affiliated with various socialist political parties including the Socialist Party of America. Also, unions tended to become popular in jobs sectors with a history of abusing its employees such as mining, the auto industry, the garment industry, and shipping (train and cargo ships) and employed mostly immigrants and minorities.

 Later on, various other laws such as Social Security, minimum wage, 40 hour work week, child labor laws, women’s right to vote, job safety and the creation of OSHA, worker’s compensation, unemployment, and welfare were all labeled as “socialist” (or even “communist”) and vigorously opposed by Big Business.

Not long after the first Labor Day parade was held on September 5, 1882 in New York City, the New York State legislature began work to introduce a bill to formally recognize organized labor. However, it was Oregon which was first sign into law a bill establishing a day honoring labor on February 27, 1887.  Later that same year, four other states, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York signed into law bills which not just acknowledged organized labor but also established them as state recognized holidays.

By 1890, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut join the growing list of states to celebrate organized labor. Four years later, 23 states  passed laws to honor working men and women. Finally, on June 28, 1894, Congress decided to get on the act, thus establishing Labor Day as an official federal holiday.

While this was a major victory for the working class, who was the first person to propose a day recognizing labor? Not surprisingly, the answer isn’t so clear cut. However, there are two individuals most often cited. The earliest records show that in 1882, Peter J. McGuire, the son of poor Irish Catholic immigrants and general secretary for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners as well as the co-founder of the American Federation of Labor (“AFL”) first suggested setting aside a day to honor the working class.

The other contender was Matthew Maguire, another child of Irish immigrant parents. Maguire was the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists and Blacksmiths located in Paterson, New Jersey. He made the proposal in 1882 while serving as the recording secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. Maguire was also a New York alderman.

Additionally, the New Jersey Historical Society reported that according to an editorial in the Paterson Morning Call newspaper, “Alderman Maguire” President Cleveland should give Maguire a ”souvenir pen”.  As an aside, in 1896, Maguire ran as the vice presidential candidate for the Socialist Labor Party of America alongside the presidential candidate, Charles H. Matchett.

 Labor membership continued to growing, reaching almost 1/3 of the workforce by the end of the 1950’s, although in terms of actual numbers, it reached its highest point in 1979, hitting 29 million dues paying members. Nevertheless, union membership began its decline in the 1960s, accelerating in the 1980’s under President Ronald Reagan as companies began closing plants and exporting jobs overseas.

The once powerful public sector unions have also lost much of their clout following the infamous 1981 strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) which resulted in the firing of some 11,000 striking air traffic controllers over pay, hours, and job safety issues by President Reagan, which, among other things, prohibits public unions from striking.  

 Another reason for the decline of union membership is growing trend of “Right to Work” legislation., which stems from Section14(b) of the 1947 Taft-Harley Act which gives state the authority to prohibit mandatory union membership even in a closed (or union) shop. Under “Right to Work”, employees may elect not to join a union and thus are not required to pay union dues.

 However, these employees still benefit from any and all collective bargaining agreements, including the use of a shop steward to assist them with any employment issue. The result is a drain on union resources. Currently there are 27 "Right to Work" states which include Kentucky, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Indiana. 

 Today, organized labor makes up roughly 10% of the workforce or about 14.3 million workers, with public unions comprising the bulk of union membership (33%) compared to just 6% who belong to private unions. The states with the highest union membership is Hawaii with 26.5% of its workforce belonging to a union. Hawaii is followed by New York with 20% and Alaska with 17.7%.

 Education and protective services such as teachers, police, EMS, and fire have the highest percentage of union membership. Black employees are most likely to belong to a union, more so than Hispanics, Whites, Asians, or Native Americans.  Meanwhile, men are slightly more likely to belong to a union than women (10.5% to 9.5% respectively).

I guess I've always tended to support unions, employee owned workplaces. and employee initiatives. Most of my relatives belonged to unions, especially mining and railroad. I've worked primarily for several non-union companies. Most were decent, but some seriously "used and abused" their employees. 

This resulted in high employee turnover, sloppy work, very low morale, heated outbursts, and hostile work conditions amid poor management skills. In fact, they were so bad, I used them as examples in the undergraduate and graduate classes I taught. Amusingly, few of my students believed the examples were from a real---albeit unnamed---company!  

In every place I worked, I was asked by fellow employees to serve as the employee representative. I'm not sure why I was repeatedly chosen. Perhaps they thought I'd be fair and balanced or perhaps it was because I wasn't bashful about challenging authority figures. Regardless, I was always honored by the trust and confidence my fellow employees had in me to take on management.

My last position before retiring was that of "Special Coordinator to the President for Special Projects". Basically, this was an assistant vice president position which functioned similar to my previous roles as an employee/management liaison (some saw it as a “non-union shop steward”). I provided a comprehensive report to the company president and the Regional Vice President with recommendations for the improvement of company morale and productivity (in addition to my role as Senior Legal Manager).

In addition to serving on several non-profit boards, I was appointed state chairperson of a national writers union (UAW/NWU 1981) where I served for 11 years. I handled state based issues and served on the local labor council. I was elected as the National Vice Chairperson of the At Large Chapter and served on several national committees. I also liaised with several labor oriented organizations and served on the Greater Louisville Central Labor Council.

Equality and fairness in the workplace has always been a historically important union issue. Unions backed social causes like the Women's Suffrage Movement, Civil Rights, and the Chicano Movement of migrant farm workers and sharecroppers for fair wages, not to mention the Family Medical Leave Act,  and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) which guaranteed returning military personal their old job back or paid training for a similar job in the event their earlier job or place of employment was gone. Many also unions opposed President Clinton's "NAFTA", which turned out to be a disaster for many American businesses as well as the working class.

Unions are said to have created the middle class, which may very well be true, but it's not been all wine and roses. If you look at countries with no or weak unions, you tend to find a weak middle class and widespread poverty. Of course, that isn’t to say unions are the answer to every social or economic problem, nor are unions always applicable to every job sector, but they aren’t the villain they are often made out to be by Big Business.

Additionally, unions have faced a lot of problems over the years, externally and internally. One of which is their refusal to think outside of the box, or to be more accurate, outside of the hip pocket of the Democratic Party which, like the Republicans, greedily serves Wall Street, leaving unions to “manage” the employees on behalf of management rather than represent them.

Union leadership has consistently failed to protect the best interests of its members by not making the major parties or candidates compete for their support. Labor must look elsewhere, even if it means forming its own political party (did you know that we're the only industrial nation---and one of the few nations period--- without a Labor party?) or face eventual extinction. It’s not a question of “if”, but “when”.

So, as you and yours do whatever you do on this last long weekend of the summer, take a moment to remember what Labor Day is all about---the working class of America.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Labor Day

History of Labor Day

Right To Work—What It Is And More Importantly, What It Isn’t?

Labor unions in the United States

Unions, Workers, And Wages At The Peak Of The AmericanLabor Movement

US labor union membership slips in 2024 to record low

Right to Work

The Consequences Of Reagan Breaking The 1981 Air TrafficControllers Strike

Matthew Maguire

Charles H. Matchett

Peter J. McGuire

AFL-CIO: Peter J. McGuire

Socialist Labor Party of America

 

 

 

Can Donald Trump Really 'Clean House' As Promised?

Donald Trump's thumping of Vice President Kamala Harris has sent shivers down the spines of not just the Democrats, but the Status Quo as well. Trump's election is seen by his supporters as four years of long overdue house cleaning; of ridding the government of corrupt oligarchs and wealthy insiders who've turned our Republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy, albeit  with a thin veneer of democracy. The question facing Trump and the American People is whether he or anyone else can rid the nation of this virus and restore America?  

According to the 2024 World Population Review's publication of the world's oligarchies, there are twelve full fledge oligarchies plus several which are approaching the definition of oligarchy, but before we get to those countries, just what is a oligarchy?

The term comes from the Greek meaning "rule by the few" . An oligarchy  is sometimes referred  to as a plutocracy or a kleptocracy, which are actually subsets of an oligarchy.  A plutocracy is rule by the rich. So is a kleptocracy, which means rule by a few to steal their country's resources for their own benefit. A aristocracy or theocracy are types of oligarchy.

The ideal form of government for a oligarchy is authoritarian or feudal, although they can exist, at least for a while, in a democratic style Republic, be it a parliamentary system or a "winner-take-all" system like the U.S. has. They typically expand their reach through a process known as "gradualism". They advance a little here, maybe retreat slightly (and temporarily) there until they have ample influence to achieve their agenda.

Generally speaking, oligarchs are students of history and power. Since their bottom line is all about control,  they typically exert control over the media in order to control the flow and content of information.  Following Joseph Goebbels's dicta on propaganda, the public is feed just enough truth as to bury the lie without much notice. In most cases, the lie simply remains hidden behind euphemisms and red tape. Sometimes, there are no lies at all. The public is often seen as having achieve the occasional "victories" to keep them pacified just as they are kept entertained.

The elite monitors the population through surveillance, which is enforced through the law enforcement, intelligence agencies, secret courts and/or cooperative judges. Individuals who speak out to loudly or reveal their secrets (often falsely labeled as "national security") are accused of treason and dealt with accordingly (Julian Assange, Karen Silkwood, Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Kwaitkowski, and Edward Snowden come to mind). 

 Naturally, they control the nation's monetary policy  in a variety of ways, but most notably interest rates (which affects inflation) and taxation.  The military is used not just protecting the nation, but also as a club to enforce policies which, at their heart, are intended to open markets and access to resources (there is blurring of what's in their interests and the nation's).

Those governments who cooperate, receive various forms of bribery such as ”favorite nation" status and with it, supplemented access to our markets, billions in financial aid and "loans" (which are usually "forgiven" in all or part), and product such as military equipment, grain, fertilizers, etc. (and yet they somehow stay poor and backwards). Many times, direct U.S. military presence is provided to officially protect them from mutual enemies when in truth, they're for propping up the regime and protecting our own investments.

Those who are hesitant or refuse to cooperate face the usual threats of implied force and slow build up of purgative  labels as "undemocratic", "oppressive", "terrorist", and so forth. Gradually, the heat is turned up until a "liberation" invasion is deployed. After which, a new regime and more cooperative regime is installed (historically these tend to be Far Right military juntas).  If any of this sounds familiar, it should.

So, who are these "oligarchic" nations mentioned by the World Population Review? Not surprisingly China is top on the list. Despite officially being a "people's republic", the party control everything. It can make the richest Chinese business person a peasant anytime it wants. The government maintains a significant presence in every business operation.

Russia is another oligarchy which tends to operate more like a kleptocracy. They control every aspect of elections, keenly heeding Stalin's old adage about it not being who voted that's important, but rather who counts the votes. They also have their hands in every aspect of the Russian economy, particularly its oil, gas, infrastructure (like construction) and military.

Iran too is an oligarchy. In this case, a authoritarian theocracy comprised of clerics.  These clerics control nearly every aspect of society, from the economy, parliament, military, education, and media to maintaining a "morality" police which enforces religious laws governing dress, music, food, and social life based on their strict brand of Islamic law. 

North Korea is not unexpectedly an oligarchy under the total control of Kim Jong Un, his immediate family, and the military.  Several Middle Eastern monarchies such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates function as oligarchies in varying degrees as well. So do other countries like Columbia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Chad, Laos, and the Congo (amusingly, many of these nations also call themselves "democracies" or "people's republics"). 

Finally, the United States. The U.S. as an oligarchy has been supported by data from various academic studies for several years, although officially it's a democratic Constitutional Republic. That really shouldn't come as a surprise if you know your history. Ancient Rome, which our system of government is modeled on, called itself a "Republic" long after coming under the rule of the Caesars in order to reassure the people while it firmly seized control of the empire. The imperial government functioned as a military junta.  The result of these studies have shown that America is dominated by a relatively small handful of immensely wealthy individuals and corporations.

According to Italian dictator and founder of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini, fascism is a hand-in-glove partnership between the central government and Big Business. He added that fascism was more accurately defined as "corporatism" since that is what it was. However, in his definition, the state was to be the dominate partner. Today, Wall Street is the senior partner. Fascism occupies the same point on the Right that Communism occupies on the Left.

Is Fascism Left or Right wing? We hear that question often these days, especially as WWII fades from our collective memories. Make no mistake, however, those who lived through it had no doubt that fascism was seen as a extreme form of conservatism. Fascism borrows from the Left and the Right to varying degrees based on the history, traditions, and values of a given nation.

Countries with strong religious ties tend to keep or enhance those ties under fascism for instance. Some instituted a racial or ethnic policy. Some didn't. That's why fascism in Italy differed from Germany's, which was different from that of Spain or Hungary, Argentina, Austria, or Romania.  As an example,  Oswald Mosley, a English fascist of the 1930's tried to introduce a brand of Nazism in England, which Hitler, while acknowledging it, disapproved of.

When asked why, Hitler said the National Socialism was organic. It was based on political, religious, and social elements which were uniquely German and therefore couldn't be transplanted elsewhere. Instead, individuals like Moseley or America's Fritz Kuhn, should develop their own unique form of fascism as Italy, Argentina, and Spain had done.

As an aside, many of the reforms which followed WWI and the Great Depression were considered "socialist" such as unemployment insurance, the FDIC, Social Security, and so forth. Not only did the United States enact these and other social programs, so did Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, and other Right Wing governments (in fact, almost every country enacted some type of public programs).

Because of the pre-WWI  global political and economic power of Socialism, there was  serious concern among the ruling elites that a revised Socialist Left could potentially topple their capitalist empires. As a result, something called "conservative socialism" came about, albeit amid the gnashing  of teeth and a strong propaganda campaign opposing these "Anti-American" proposals such as wage and hour legislation, the right of workers to organize, the introduction of child labor laws, and workplace safety.

The goal of "conservative socialism" was to protect the capitalist state while introducing changes designed to pacify the people (and, of course, stimulate the economy. Starving or sick workers are useless). This became the bedrock of modern "gradualism" which sought to appease those who provided the labor while leaving the system essentially intact.

So, who are America's oligarchs? That's a hard question to answer since the exact definition is a matter of some disagreement among academics. Some consider those in the 10% or 5% income bracket to be the oligarchy. Many say the top 1%, while a few think it's more likely the 0.01%.

It's this sort integration into society which helps to insulate them from a direct public backlash similar to what befell their predecessors in 18th Century France for instance.  But one thing for certain, it's not the average U.S. taxpayer and voter who calls the shots. We're merely given the illusion. This is our "Matrix". Today's government  serves the interests of the wealthy, whether that be the top 5% or .01% at the exclusion of the bottom 99%.

Once, names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Mellon, Gould, Vanderbilt, Ford, Hearst, Rothschild, and Carnegie were synonymous with near absolute wealth and power. They bought presidents and prime ministers, congressmen and lords, judges and generals with the same ease as hiring anyone else who worked for them. Power was measured in railroad tracks, shipping, steel manufactured, newspapers sold, real estate, and of course, the control of money.

 Today, it's corporations such as Exxon, Bank of America, McDonald Douglas, Google, Apple, and Raytheon are among the small clique of entities who call the shots in Washington, but the end goal remains the same---the control of money and with it, the power it brings.  

While names like Musk, Bloomberg, Bezos, and Gates are familiar to us. Less known are names like Miriam Adelson, Ken C. Griffin, Cameron and Tyler Winkelvoss, Peter Thiel, Dick and Liz, Uihlien, Tim Mellon of the Mellon banking dynasty, and they like it that way. It gives them anonymity, which only enhances their power and personal security. In this past presidential election, they donated billions of dollars (Tim Mellon alone donated $100 million dollars), and you can bet it wasn't done out of patriotism.

Money is more than "free speech" and it buys more than just access. It buys power to a degree that the Czars, Emperors, and Sultans once welded. Consultants, advisors, and lobbyists in their employ, directly or indirectly, do far more that make suggestions when it comes to legislation. They help write bills. They review and recommend how to vote on legislation. They help move bills they're interested in through the maze of committees. They fund public pressure ("awareness") groups to promote issues of interest to them, including linking with legitimate groups.

They have a major impact on creating foreign and domestic policy. Of course, they compete with others elites. It's all part of the game of power, and we're a part of their game whether we like it or not. It creates the illusion of a competing political duopoly. As the famous Louisiana Governor, Huey Long, once said about the Democrats and Republicans, "one skins from the ankle up and the other from ear down.

That's the only real difference in the two parties. We are their pawns to be played and sacrificed with the ease of sipping a martini. In exchange, we're periodically given an incidental crumb from their thrones which are then hailed as some sort of victories for the public by the media they own.  

This is not the nation our Founding Fathers intended, but it is the nation we allowed to come into being. Whether Trump, his cabinet, or his mass of supporters can change this remains to be seen. Historically, those who get to close are bought off, co-opted, stalled, defeated and demoralized before being shuffled off History's stage, or simply removed from the game altogether.  Trump knows the game well. He's been a player all his life. Let's hope he can prevail. This may be the last time an outsider will ever have the opportunity again.

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article.

 

What countries have authoritarian governments

List of Whistleblowers

Oligarchy comes to America

Who has joined Trump's team so far?

 

Oligarchy countries 2024

 

Bourgeois socialism