Home | About | Donate

Corporate Authoritarianism and the New American Anti-Democracy


Corporate Authoritarianism and the New American Anti-Democracy

Peter Bloom, Carl Rhodes

Numerous allegations of sexual assault have delivered what may be a fatal blow to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. His lewd remarks have been rightly condemned in the strongest terms by the mainstream media, his Liberal opponents and even members of his own Party. More than just heading for certain defeat, he has been accused of bringing disrepute to the very idea of American democracy.


The very fact that Trump and Clinton are the nominees in this election exhibit the destruction of democracy in this country. From the rigged primary, Trump has found a new wedge issue and he uses it freely. His statement that he would jail HRC comes from the fact that she should have been indicted for the mishandling of classified documents and lying to the Congress, among other things, any of us would be in jail. She's above the law as is he.
We can cry about what Trump does and says but he gets his material from the reality of a corrupt Clinton candidacy, it's too easy for him. They are trying to crown Clinton and thought Trump would be easy for her to beat, but he back fired and uncovered millions of Americans feel like he does. Wow who'd of thunk it.
Corporations run this country and the candidates. Trump destroying democracy gives him way more credit than he deserves. This is the American way now. Love it or change it.
Jill Stein 2016


Seeing how Clinton's first hundred days are certain to include the dismantling of anything having even a faint aroma of progressive in it, saying "the task for progressives, regardless of who wins the election, is to turn back the tide of this corporate authoritarianism" implies the "turning back" needs to happen after November 9. When you consider how deeply rooted the red and blue parties are into corporate authoritarianism, the time to act is now by voting Green Party on November 8.


Don't you think that the Progressives and the Left could and should join forces with the disaffected workers who will be voting for Trump after the election?


Bloom and Rhodes tell us that "The goal is the domination of others for one's own pleasure and profit," and that's why Trump is so deplorable.
But isn't Hillary striving for that same domination, pleasure and profit?
Look at how Bernie and his supporters were treated and cheated. Or the money Hillary collected delivering speeches to the oligarchy.
The fact is that for the past 40 years Hillary's singular focus has been becoming the first women president.
Like Robert Johnson, Hillary sold her soul to the devil for 20 pieces of silver and name recognition.


If progressives thought they were treated bad by Clinton and the DNC during the primary, they ain't seen nuthin yet !

Clinton's first hundred days will be a bloodbath for progressives with the subsequent 93 months of her presidency even worse.


Takes a great politician to do that, or tremendous nationwide civil disobedience.

For example, for each month, we will not go to work, we will not buy anything nonessential for survival for 1 day.

What day? If this is January, then we find that fillintheBlank CEO at Crummy Oil co has a birthday Jan. 23rd. So the entire month would be focused on the atrocities of that one corporation.

Corporation Destruction Matters (CDT)


In Gaeilge (Irish) - Is é rogha an dá diogh é.
It is the choice between two ditches.

Then again “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”


Trump is a Fascist and that's all that anyone needs to know before they vote for Jill Stein.


One of the reasons so many people seem to want an authoritarian power is the fact that so many feel powerless and overwhelmed by their own economic condition. Living paycheck to paycheck (and often just short of that next paycheck), injects a sense of despair and a feeling of being out of control of one's own life. Craving the ability to assert authority in their own lives that cannot be achieved, one can see how so many would gravitate toward an external authority in a belief that the external authority will make one's life as "great" as one thinks it ought to be.

One can construct a crude, but perhaps informative, index to measure this, based on the relationship between average national productivity and median household income in the US. In 2013, the US per capita GNP was $53,750 and the average family size was 2.54. In a world where wealth is equally shared, that would mean that each family would enjoy an income of $136,525. Clearly, this is not the case. In fact, 2013 median household income was only $51,939. Thus, average family GNP is 2.63 times greater than the actual household income American experience. One can think of this as an Index of the Tendency Toward Authoritarianism. If that index were much, much closer to 1, I doubt so many would embrace authoritarianism. But at the actual level of 2.63, the index would support what we are seeing in this election -- desperation tending toward authoritarianism.


It's called the Hitler Syndrome.


Clinton keeps trying to blacken Trump by calling him Putin's bro, while blaming Putin for Wikileaks about her and her campaign.

What could possibly go wrong with telling America Russia is trying to influence the election?

And, if Clinton lost, what do you think her response would be?

Vote Sane: Vote Green.


We have massive failure of our education system. Forty per cent of the population are semi-literate. A huge number do not understand the three branches of government. Second, the corporate media have deserted us. Through the medium of TV we are entertained continuously. Jefferson said that an informed electorate is necessary for a functioning democracy. In "The Political Brain" Drew Weston said that 85 per cent of the electorate vote for emotional reasons. He identified abortion, same-sex marriages and hand guns as the emotional elements; he neglected to consider race. Remember George Herbert Walker Bush's Willie Horton and Ronald Reagan's Cadillac Welfare Queens who drove their Cads to pick up their food stamps? Couple all of this with the fact that the Republicans and banks have picked our pockets and many people's standards of living have declined, and they are angry. So onto the scene Donald Trump barges in saying whatever comes into his head. But he says it with a demeanor that angry, uneducated people relate to. The good news is that enough people have caught on that Trump is losing ground to Clinton, never mind that she is a creature of Wall Street and a war monger. As our politicians end their preaching say, "God bless America".


Trump says that Clinton should be in jail. He should also because he is a sex offender.


Anyone of a liberal/progressive mind-set should be chilled by the phrase "new authoritarian American Dream" and the ROLE that the DNC/DLC Corproate Democratic Party has played in CREATING this reality that Trump capitalized on. Too many have caved to Trump-FEAR and IGNORED the dangers of Clinton. (I've certaioy had my wavering moments of that) Vote for the futuer GREEN PARTY Dr,. Jill Stein to address the political sickness that's infected the U.S. for 30+years. www.jill2016.com/plan


I always wonder if these "per capita"/median/average incomes are calculated by INCLUDING the top 10% or not. The figure I hear most often is $42,000 per year (& its far LESS when you add in race & gender). HALF of Americans are now living in poverty or near poverty: making LESS THAN $32,000---many making FAR LESS even of that. We are the Invisible Ones who NOT ONLY the GOP calls the "Takes" but the Corporate Democrats ABANDONED & BETRAYED in the first Clinton Administration---& likely will continue to do so in the second Clinton Administration. But, way too many "everyday Americans" WORSHIP WEALTH & ALSO determine the worth of human beings based on it. Of course, racism & sexism carry big weights as well--but, WEALTH WORSHIP & lack of class consciousness are the foundation of the authoritarianism we face.


Of course this anti-democratic, authoritarian politics is not just a major problem in the U.S. but in a number of other countries.
The corporatization of politics, and the protective systematization of elite power and wealth, has resulted in a world where almost all of us are born into the dominating, autocratic order where conformity, obedience and capitulation are demanded. Failure to do so means poverty and exclusion from basic human rights.
Invisible in plain sight, we know the false leaders by their bafflegab that doesn't come close to addressing the root problems that are created by said authoritarian politics. Note their philosophy of nihilism, valiantly waving amidst crowds to the anthem of progress, decency and patriotism.
Reclaim the heart of humanity and vote for progressives that will address root causes of our corporate governance. Green is looking best at this point.


I believe the measures I chose account for the problem that you are worried about. The per capita GNP figures (the numerator in the calculation) includes everyone. It is a simple average -- that is, total GNP divided by the number of people. This IS the calculation you want to make to find out how much everyone would have if wealth were equally distributed.

The median household income also includes everyone, but a median figure is NOT the same as an average. Rather, it is the income of a family that sits exactly in the middle of the distribution of data points -- that is, there are as many families making more as there are making less than the median value. This means you DO NOT have the "Warren Buffet" problem discussed in MIMIC_Buster's reply to my posting. Adding a few more multi-billionaires to the top end of the data set would not move the median value up much, if at all.

I used 2013 data because it was readily available to me for both measures. Data for later years would be unlikely to be much different.


Yes, it does.


As I explained in response to LydiaMN, the per capita GNP figure is an average and shows how wealthy (in terms of income) each individual would be if the entirety of our annual production were shared equally among all individuals, regardless of age, race, sex, etc.

Median Household Income, on the other hand, is not an average. Rather it is the income of a family that sits exactly in the center of the distribution of data, with as many families above as below the median. This means you DO NOT have the Warren Buffet problem that you cite.