SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
oligarchs
A Jeremiad for the Working People of the United States
The prevailing issue that demands consensus is the economic exploitation and deprivation of our economic model for working people of all demographics.
Mar 25, 2025
The oligarchs are laughing. The corporatists are laughing.
They are laughing at working people as the big con continues. They are laughing at the corporate Democratic Party whose genetic code lacks the heart to challenge the autocracy now unfolding. “Good billionaires vs. bad billionaires.” Really?
The political left spectrum is largely catatonic. Progressives lament the ineffectiveness of their wing of the Democratic Party. “Outsider” leftists are skeptical of both political parties, but too small in numbers yet to pose a threat to corporate Democrats.
The time of milquetoasts is over. It is time to recognize what must be done.
Liberals on the left spectrum are flummoxed; some stalwarts attribute their recent political debacle to the inability of the Democratic Party to distribute a cogent message of their accomplishments.
It was not the message that flopped. Rather economic numbers proved that our economic model continued to squash the interests of working people. They then sent a clear message that they were not buying the corporate Democratic dose of doldrums. They voted for President Donald Trump.
Economic Classes
Working people are comprised of the middle-working class and working class. The middle-working class identifies itself as “middle class.” The term is designed to divide working people.
Economic class has nothing to do with salaries or wages; it is about economic power. “Middle class” interests are closer to the working class than the dominant economic class.
Michael Zweig pointed this out in an insightful book in 2000 and revised in 2012. He identified the working class at 63% and the middle class at 35%. The combination presents a significant percentage of Americans who live and work largely by the undemocratic capriciousness of the 2%.
Real Economic Numbers
The income disparity in our country is at record levels as reported by the Congressional Budget Office. The income gap between the rich and everyone else is stunning. Income disparities are now so pronounced that America’s richest 1% of households averaged 139 times as much income as the bottom 20% in 2021.
The wealth disparity is just as shameful. Statista reported that in the first quarter of 2024, almost two-thirds of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10%; the lowest 50% only owned 2.5% of the total wealth.
Make no mistake, If Americans do not take seriously the activities of the dominant economic class, it will be too late for working people.
The Ludwig Institute for Shared Prosperity (LISEP) reported an actual unemployment rate. LISEP tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job, wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes.
Their actual unemployment rate for this January was 23.3%.
Shadow Government Statistics (SGS) reported another actual unemployment rate. A significant demographic was mysteriously defined out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in 1994. Those discouraged workers who searched for work for more than one year simply vanished from the BLS unemployed numbers.
SGS reported that the actual unemployment rate for this January was 26.8%.
Inflation
The government’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the cost of maintaining a constant standard of living and measuring the cost of out-of-pocket expenses. However, since the 1980s the BLS has been altering its methodologies to decrease the actual inflation rate provided to the public.
The BLS ignores food and energy prices in “core” inflation numbers as if food and energy are not basic necessities for living.
The BLS transitioned from their historic fixed-weight basket of goods and services to a quasi-substitution-based basket of goods.
It also changed from arithmetic weighting to geometric weighting and to owners’ equivalent rent (OER) numbers.
Another BLS method to decrease the real inflation rate was a transition to hedonic measures, which actually attempts to measure how much enjoyment a person receives from changing from one product to another.
These changes reflected the BLS intentional artificial deflation of accurate CPI numbers from the American public.
SGS reported that the actual inflation rate for this January was 10.81%.
Big Picture Not So Good
Naturally, working people are seeking relief from this economic suffocation; according to the Council on Foreign Relations we have the largest disparity in wealth and income than any other developed country.
Good paying manufacturing jobs with other benefits left the country in dramatic numbers in the 1960s and 70s. How did this happen?
We can begin with an abysmal fact:
The economic empire of the U.S. is presently over, done, finished.
Our demise began when corporations moved to countries with low wages, regulations were minimal or nonexistent, and unions were absent. This was paradise for the corporate owner class.
This trend is continuing, and those good paying jobs are gone with no reason to return despite the bluster and gibberish emanating from the Trump administration.
The Economic Policy Institute reported that the U.S. lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in the last 25 years. To place our country in an advantageous position again will require transformation to a different economic model with smart negotiations and intelligent diplomacy with other countries.
A troubling result of the massive exodus of manufacturing jobs is the U.S. declining Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Consider in 2024, the GDP of the U.S. grew 2.8%; the GDP of China grew 5%. India, another member of the BRICS economic bloc, grew 5.6%.
Economic Tree
It is not that complicated here.
Our economic model is characterized by an economic tree for working people. At the root of the tree is the primary issue of wages and salaries.
Moving up the tree are branches that comprise secondary issues. They are viable employment opportunities; effective, affordable healthcare; comprehensive educational opportunities; comfortable, secure housing opportunities; wholesome nutrition; safe, reliable transportation; environmentally clean water, air, and land.
Will progressive organizations coalesce into a national movement for economic and political democracy and seize the Democratic Party?
The third branch are cultural issues: They are reasonable gun control, effective immigration reform, women’s healthcare rights, and LGBTQ rights. These issues are important to their demographics; however, they have been manipulated into wedge issues that distract working people from the real source of their discontent—that is the political power that maintains the privilege and power of the dominant economic class.
Working people must accept cultural issues without necessarily agreeing with them. The prevailing issue that demands consensus is the economic exploitation and deprivation of our economic model for working people of all demographics.
Emphasizing cultural issues with so called “woke” identity politics over economic class politics has resulted in the grotesque policies of Mr. Trump and the Republican Party cult.
It is these tertiary issues that Mr. Trump used to provoke and frighten MAGA working people. It distracted them into ignoring their economic class malaise.
An effective political party must work to transform primary issues into an inclusive party. Until then, cultural issues will be little but distractions for marginalized groups without actual progress for their causes; Democrats will continue to bay in the wind and lose elections while an autocratic political model is established. Project 2025 is that model and a blueprint financed by the corporate and oligarch class.
A Smart Direction
The shelf life is over for assorted corporate Democrats and corporate union leaders. Their vapid strategies and tactics unwittingly encouraged working people to support Mr. Trump. Consider that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defeated Mr. Trump in polls in 2016 and 2020. Yet the Democratic Party corporate sycophants denied Sen. Sanders the nomination.
The time of milquetoasts is over. It is time to recognize what must be done.
The arc of our progressive history includes the abolitionists, labor rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights, anti-war activities, and environmental movements. All had a common theme: They were mass movements that began as large groups of people who knew they could do better.
This may be what it requires to shake us free from the dehumanizing, exploitative crimes and corruption of neofascism that Mr. Trump and his MAGA cabal have been implementing. As contradictions sharpen and immiseration increases, the choices are stark.
Make no mistake, If Americans do not take seriously the activities of the dominant economic class, it will be too late for working people. The flurry of political attacks on our Constitution are not some frivolous actions that will be remedied in two or four years. The Trump cabal is playing the long game. Even the legal foundation of American democracy, Marbury v. Madison, is in jeopardy.
The judicial branch may strike down some of the more absurd legal and constitutional excesses of Mr. Trump’s supporters. However, his cult leaders of Project 2025 are preparing for a permanent autocratic model to replace our democratic republic. It will have the veneer of democracy, but will be an autocracy in form.
Remedies
Each day, the administration plows ahead with truculent policies chipping away at the lives of working people. Will the time arrive for working people to create a national database of progressive organizations as an informational foundation for an authentic progressive movement? Will it facilitate petitions, mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, and general strikes?
Will progressive organizations coalesce into a national movement for economic and political democracy and seize the Democratic Party? Third-party options, while advancing democracy, are chimerical at this time. ICE is the new Gestapo, and waiting for a new political party to emerge is delusional.
Will our spiritual and secular organizations lead a movement or remain docile?
Pope Paul VI wrote Populorism Progressio in 1967. He stated that the restructuring of society was a welcome possibility. Though he admonished against violent means, he acknowledged a form of violence was an option:
Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities, and bring new disasters. The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results.
The question must be asked about a time table for ameliorating the poverty, deprivation, and suffering that will surely follow the scabrous policies of Mr. Trump. Each day is a new attack on our political and social norms; neofascist laws appear like a new head regenerated on a hydra. The courts may strike one down and another one is hatched immediately by the Trump cult.
This is addressed in a quote from Mexican poet Homero Aridjis in 1991: “There are centuries in which nothing happens and years in which centuries pass.”
We will certainly find out soon enough. We must ask ourselves are we Americans willing to take the risk; as Victor Hugo stated in an essay in 1845: “You have enemies, Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders, AOC Draw Biggest Crowd of Their Careers at Rally to Fight 'Oligarchy' in Denver
"The American people will not allow Trump to move us into oligarchy and authoritarianism. We will fight back. We will win," said Sanders.
Mar 22, 2025
On the heels of record-breaking attendance at a "Fighting Oligarchy" event in Tempe, Arizona earlier this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York held a rally in Denver, Colorado on Friday evening that drew more than 34,000 people—making it largest event that Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez have ever held.
Sanders, an Independent, wrote on social media on Friday that the turnout is a sign that "the American people will not allow Trump to move us into oligarchy and authoritarianism. We will fight back. We will win."
According to Anna Bahr, Sanders' communications director, the senator's largest rally prior to Denver took place in Brooklyn, New York in 2016, when he was running for president.
Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, wrote online that "something special is happening... Working people are ready to stand together and fight for our democracy. Thank you Colorado!"
At the rally, which took place at Denver's Civic Center Park, the two lawmakers hit on the same themes they spoke about in Arizona.
"The American people are saying loud and clear, we will not accept an oligarchic form of society," Sanders said, according to Colorado Public Radio. "We will not accept the richest guy in the world running all over Washington, making cuts to the Social Security Administration, cuts to the Veterans Administration, almost destroying the Department of Education—all so that they could give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%."
"If you don't know your neighbor, it's easier to turn on them," said Ocasio-Cortez, per CPR. "That's why they want to keep us separated, alone, and apart. Scrolling on our phones thinking that the person next to us is some kind of enemy, but they're not."
Sanders launched his "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here" tour in February, with the aim of talking to Americans about the "takeover of the national government by billionaires and large corporations, and the country's move toward authoritarianism."
The series of "Fighting Oligarchy" events have been taking place as some Democrats have gotten an earful at town halls back home, where constituents have come out to implore them to do more to counter efforts by the Trump administration.
Earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders also held a rally in Greeley, Colorado—which is represented by Republican Gabe Evans in the House of Representatives—which drew more than 11,000 people.
Semaforreporter David Weigel, who attended both the Greely and Denver rally, posted online that at the Greeley rally it wasn't easy to find people in the crowd who had voted for Sanders in the 2020 presidential primary. Weigel also wrote that the Sanders team told him that half of the RSVPs to the rallies were not from the lawmaker's supporter list.
Eric Blanc, an assistant professor the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University, wrote on Bluesky on Saturday that it is "pretty remarkable how AOC and Bernie have become leaders not just of lefties, but of the Democratic Party's mainstream liberal base."
While its dangerous that "establishment liberals" are yielding to Trump, he wrote, "the silver lining is that this has enabled anti-corporate forces such as labor unions and AOC-Bernie to set the tenor of Resistance 2.0."
"Because today's anti-Trump resistance is more focused on economic concerns, more rooted in labor unions, and more anti-billionaire, it has the potential to sink much deeper roots among working people and, in so doing, to definitively overcome MAGA," wrote Blanc.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Elon Musk Is Wrong About Empathy
History has continuously shown that I am only secure when my neighbor is secure, and that I thrive when my neighbor thrives.
Mar 21, 2025
“The fundamental weakness is empathy,” Elon Musk recently told radio podcast host Joe Rogan. “There is a bug, which is the empathy response.”
As Musk has established himself as at least the second most powerful person in an administration seeking a wholesale remaking of institutions, rules, and norms, what he said matters, because it encapsulates a political plan. What the Project 2025 report set out in over 900 turgid pages, Musk’s remark captures in a simple pithy mantra for the social media age.
And as (let us acknowledge it) the Trump revolution is currently popular with at least large parts of the U.S. electorate, and some overseas too, what Musk said summarizes also the worldview of a social-cultural moment and movement on the march.
Empathy is not pity. It is rooted in mutuality. As as an ethical frame, it looks at a person in need, perhaps a person that some others don’t fully see, and says straight away, “I ought to connect, as that could have been me.”
Core to the argument against empathy is the claim that ethical and practical considerations run counter to each other. The guardrails of rules and norms about caring for others, it argues, don’t only hold us back, they tie our hands behind our back.
Morality is for losers, it suggests, and who wants to lose? Only when we cut ourselves free of the burden of looking after and looking out for others, it posits, can we soar. The practical applications of this worldview are all encompassing.
They include the ripping up of international cooperation; the gutting of life-saving programs for people in poverty abroad and at home; and the violating of due process for protestors, prisoners, migrants, minorities, and anyone (who can be made to be) unpopular. That’s not how it ends, that’s how it starts.
A collapse of empathy would be an existential threat to the world. Hannah Arendt, reflecting on her witness to, and escape from, the rise of fascism in the 1930s, concluded, “The death of empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.” The stakes are too high for us to fail.
So how can we respond to the argument against empathy?
One way would be to stick only to ethics, arguing, simply, “it is our duty to sacrifice for others, and failing to do so is just wrong!” This has driven what has come to be known as the charity narrative.
This approach seems like a flawed strategy because by refusing to engage in the practicality conversation, it concedes it to the cynics and nihilists, accepting the framing of morality as a kind of self-immolation that brings only noble suffering and that cares only about stances, not consequences.
Another way would be to give up on ethics, and make only the most selfish arguments for doing good, like “we should not show ourselves to be unreliable because that would get us knocked off the top perch by our rivals when we must be Number One!” This too seems like a flawed strategy because it reinforces variations of dog-eat-dog as the only frames for success.
What both of those approaches get wrong is that they accept the frame that ethics and practicality are separate. Older wisdoms have long understood them as inseparable. What can in current debates seem like a rivalrous relationship between “what is good?” and “what is smart?”, or “what is moral?” and “what is wise?”, we often find when we look more deeply is not.
That often, the way in which societies developed moral principles was that they are ways to abstract what people have learnt from experience works. When, for example, people say in the African principle of Ubuntu “I am because you are,” that is not just a moral or theological point, it is literally true.
It is what public health teaches us: that I am healthy because my neighbour is healthy. (Even Musk was forced to concede to public pressure on this with his partial admission that “with USAID, one of the things we cancelled, accidentally, was Ebola prevention, and I think we all want Ebola prevention.”
Fearful of the reaction to his initial cancellation of Ebola prevention, he even claimed, falsely, to have fixed that “mistake” straight away, but what matters here is that the case against Ebola prevention collapsed so fast because interdependence was so quickly understood.)
So too, history has continuously shown that I am only secure when my neighbor is secure, and that I thrive when my neighbor thrives. Perhaps, for oligarchs, a ruthless, rule-less, world can work. (Perhaps not, however, when the fall-out comes between the “two bros.”)
But for the 99.9% of us, as John Donne wrote, “No man is an island.” We are interdependent and inseparable. Alone we are weak, but together we are strong. Or, as the brilliant bleak joke of old ascribed to Benjamin Franklin put it, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately.”
The mutual interest argument, which highlights to people “we each have a stake in the well-being of all, looking out for others is not losing,” does not take us away from values, it reinforces them.
“There is an interrelated structure of reality. We are all tied in an inescapable network of mutuality. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” That was Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and yet he was making an argument that you could say is the argument of mutual interest.
Empathy is not pity. It is rooted in mutuality. As as an ethical frame, it looks at a person in need, perhaps a person that some others don’t fully see, and says straight away, “I ought to connect, as that could have been me.” Interdependence, as a practical frame, reflects on the situation of that person, and comes through that reflection to understand that “I need to connect, as that could next time be me.”
Morality and wisdom guide us in the same direction; and as the fastest way there is empathy, that makes empathy not humanity’s weakness but our superpower.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular