Home | About | Donate

After "Multi-Billion Dollar Windfall" From #GOPTaxScam, Kimberly-Clark Announces Plan to Layoff 5,000 Workers


Many of our fellow Common Dream commenters really, really believe that our only hope for regaining our Democracy is by voting for Democrats. Their argument is that the Democrats are the only political party with enough existing politicians in office right now to present a strong defense against the Republicans.

These same supposedly intelligent people believe that, with their support, the Democrats they vote for can be convinced to change their Congressional voting record to reverse many decades of supporting the Military Industrial Complex, and only minimally supporting the People of our nation.

What will it take for these voters to see the reality that their support of the Democratic Party Establishment is never going to change that party?

Many think that because of their advanced age and education, they know better than those of us who refuse to believe the lies we’ve been told for decades.

I have benefited from your wisdom and words since joining this group. Have you any insight into their addiction to their self-destructive support of a party that doesn’t represent them?


True, and that is called corporate, capitalism. Which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

1 Like

what a sad story. get used to something and then get fired.

Yes, that is step one, to realize this is really about exploiting the general population for corporate or personal profit of a few rich corporations or individuals. In short, animal farm where the pigs are winning. Sooner or later we are going to have to call this what it really is, class warfare. The rich are greedy and want to exploit others to get more profits at everyone else’s espense. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the cycle that is the general direction.

Now add government to that picture. The government is not really of, by and for the people anymore, government becomes of, by and for corporate profits and the individual profits of relatively few rich people. We are becoming a Republican government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, and also of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Welcome to the America of the Trumpenstein monster…


Just took Baby out to “boboo” out of doors pardons moi,

1 Like

Does anyone else think this is backwards? I thought it was shareholders who provided the corporation with capital, thereby feeding production and innovation that pays back dividends.

Unless she is referring to stock buybacks.

One of the most fascinating things about predatory capitalism is its nomenclature. “Consumer” is one of those words. Its primary function is to stand opposite “producer”. But wait a minute. Producers are among some of the most dangerous consumers on earth under capitalism. Think anthropocene.
Cooperatives consistently work to remove the narcissism from the anthropocentric project. It ain’t easy but somebody has to explore the region.

Depends on the co-operative. There is nothing inherent within the co-operative movement that says it should be ecological sustainable. Think of all those agricultural cooperatives supporting industrial-level farming.

But you are in good company thinking it is a better site organisational model for the planet.


Rather than blame all humanity for the environmental crisis i prefer a name that is more targeted at the culprit than Anthropocene - Capitalocene.

Shareholders put capital at risk in the hopes of seeing a return.

That returns is dividends, that return is a higher share price.

Thank you for the link to that article. I totally agree with it. You do understand that the problem wasn’t Mondragon’s internal operations? Rather, as the article stated, the problem is competitive capitalism. I totally agree with the article that we need to move to a fully cooperative market. The competitive paradigm needs to go the way of the dinosaurs and be replaced by a paradigm of cooperation between producers, consumers, and all stakeholders involved. That was a very good article. I’ve seen reports of other cooperatives being crushed by competitive capitalism. The problem isn’t a criticism of cooperation but an indicator of the why a competitive market isn’t how things should be.

Co-operatives usually do have good internal operations. It is what makes them a very attractive option.

But as you recognise co-operatives operate in the wider economy and as such must compete with it (and if co-ops spread, they would compete with other co-ops meaning priority given to cutting costs…and passing on externalities)

We cannot ignore the political power situation. I think you agree, Wall St and the Corporations control governments and as such, they are not going to sit idly by and sign their own death warrants by permitting a successful co-op movement. They will endeavor to drive co-ops into the ground by either co-opting them and corrupting them or simply out-competing them and bankrupting them…They control banking, after all as well, so no credit for a co-op and certainly no State bail-out subsidies to tide them over except on the terms of the plutocrats and oligarchs

Except for isolated niche corners of the market, i simply don’t see co-ops becoming anywhere near the dominant business model, no matter how worker-friendly they are. Chomsky describes how US foreign policy in Latin America was ensuring there could be no viable alternative to the multinational-
controlled governments. The same stategy would be exercised against co-ops, IMHO.

Mondragon was an exception. The fascist Franco government saw it as a Catholic Church tool for a docile work-force and sponsored its rise.

So if coops are to prevail it requires intensified class warfare and if that is conducted, why stop short with capitalist co-operatives and not what Marx advocated,

It’s sick how gleeful these greedy bastard CEOs are when they lay employees off. What they don’t see (because they are so busy counting their millions) is that once most people are unemployed (or underpaid) they won’t be able to buy the junk their robots/technology is producing.

And unfortunately, in my view, we have not see anything yet from our Trumpenstein, monster-in-chief! I would certainly hope I am wrong, but it looks to me like it can only get worse before it gets better.

1 Like

“Now that we have reached the last desperate phase of corporate capitalism, the con artists and thieves, no longer hiding behind the curtains, come out to pillage in the open, actively making war on the anemic democratic institutions, from the press to the courts, all of which long ago surrendered to corporate power. These protofascists rely for control on the array of undemocratic tools legalized by their “moderate” predecessors—wholesale surveillance, militarized police, the criminalizing of dissent, the primacy of “law and order” and the revoking of due process and other rights by judicial and legislative fiat.”
Chris Hedges


Never, apparently!

It will be interesting to see what happens in the 2018 congressional elections. Are we going to see Republicans distancing themselves from Trump in order not to be victimized by the Trump backlash. My prediction is the backlash will impact the 2018 elections and then again definitely impact the 2020 election when Trump will probably run for re-election (unless he is impeached out of office in the meantime).

1 Like

I would like to learn more!

Co-operatives are not to be condemned as they bring forth some elbow-room for workers under capitalism but they should not be promoted as the means of emancipation for labor. Like unions they should be treated as defensive tactics. The limitations of co-ops has been revealed whenever and wherever they have been practised.

The organisation of socialism has been described as the socialist cooperative commonwealth where there exists common ownership which can be said to be no-ownership. The difference from this to conventional cooperatives is pointed out in Marx’s Gotha Programme, where it’s stated “within the co-operative society based on the common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products” for the simple reason that their work would then be social not individual and applied as part of a definite plan. What they produce belongs to them collectively, i.e. to society, as soon as it is produced.Every member of society being free to take from the common stock of consumer goods according to their individual need.

The Commons still exists and is being defended as these two recent news items demonstrate


Association was a word used in working-class circles in England to mean a voluntary union of workers to overcome the effects of competition. This was Marx’s sense too: in future society the producers would voluntarily co-operate to further their own common interest; they would cease to be “the working class” and become a class-free community. Natural resources and the man-made instruments of production would be held in common: Marx speaks of “a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common”

The State as an instrument of political rule over people would have no place. Socialist society would indeed need a central administration but this would not be a “State” or “government” in that it would not have at its disposal any means of coercing people, but would be concerned purely with administering social affairs under democratic control. Marx never defined socialist society in terms of the ownership and control of the means of production by the State, but rather in terms of ownership and control by a voluntary association of the producers themselves. He did not equate what is now called “nationalisation” with Socialism.

Conscious planning, conscious control over the material conditions of life, is the essence of socialism. This was what Marx meant when he said that real history would not begin till Socialism had been established; human beings were not behaving as human beings so long as they were controlled by blind historical and economic forces, ultimately of their own creation but unrecognized as such; Socialism would allow men to consciously regulate their relationship with Nature; only such a consciously planned society was a truly human society, a society compatible with human nature.

Socialist society would be a non-market society, with all that that implied: no money, no buying and selling, no wages, etc. Either production is regulated by a conscious previously worked-out plan or it is regulated, directly or indirectly, by the market. When Marx talked about men under capitalism being dominated by blind forces, which were in the end their own creations, it was precisely blind market forces he mainly had in mind. The Communist Manifesto specifically speaks of “the Communistic abolition of buying and selling”

These two pamhlets are worth a read