Woke capitalism and corporate socialism: Or, why American corporations are funding socialism

Wikimedia Commons

The term "woke capitalism" was coined by New York Times token conservative commentator Ross Douthat and refers to a burgeoning wave of companies that apparently have become advocates of "social justice." Many major corporations, not to mention billionaire individuals, intervene in social and political issues and controversies, partaking in a new corporate activism. The "woke" corporations support activist groups and social movements, while adding their voices to political debates. Woke capitalism has endorsed Black Lives Matter, the #MeToo Movement, contemporary feminism, LGBTQ rights, and immigration activism, among other leftist causes.

The typical explanation for Corporate America's endorsements of leftist causes runs something this. With their financial and rhetorical support of Black Lives Matter and other leftist movements, woke capitalists are merely placating consumers and workers, while avoiding the backlash of activists. When corporations and mega-wealthy individuals donate vast sums to Black Lives Matter and other leftist organizations, they curry favor with these movements and use their dollars as rhetorical cover. Some might call it extortion. But the woke corporate elite put on a happy face and appear to willingly support leftism. In the case of Black Lives Matter, these corporations prove that they're not "racist" and are in tune with the cultural and social trends. They elude the ever-threatening prospects of being "cancelled" by activists, who would otherwise call for boycotts of their businesses on Twitter and other social media.

They elude the ever-threatening prospects of being "cancelled" by activists, who would otherwise call for boycotts of their businesses on Twitter and other social media.

A related but slightly different explanation is that woke capitalism supports the liberal political elite's policies and agendas of identity politics, lax immigration standards, sanctuary cities, and so on. In return for these endorsements, corporations hope to be spared higher taxes, increased regulations, and antitrust legislation.

What if, instead, the politics of the left actually serve the interests of the would-be corporate monopolists and that is why these corporations embrace leftism? That would mean that woke capitalism is actually the expression of corporate interests.

After all, the typical explanations fail to consider how the corporate elite's promotion of contemporary woke, "social justice," and outright socialist views makes the nation and the world more amendable to leftist and socialist ideas. They also fail to account for the long-term objectives of woke capitalism. And what are the long-term objectives of woke capitalism? In short, the answer is "corporate socialism." Corporate socialism is the variant of socialism on order today.

And what are the long-term objectives of woke capitalism? In short, the answer is "corporate socialism."

And what is corporate socialism? Corporate socialism is a form of neo-feudalism. It is a two-tiered system of "actually-existing socialism" on the ground, paralleled by a set of corporate monopolies on top. Wealth for the few, "economic equality," under reduced conditions, for the rest.

Corporate socialism consists of the corporate monopolization of production and distribution of goods, rather than the state monopolization of production and distribution of goods of state socialism. What do the two types of socialism have in common? Monopoly. After all, what is socialism, if not a monopoly? Socialism is the monopoly over the state, education, cultural institutions, and the economy.

For both state socialists and corporate socialists, the free market is the enemy. They both seek to eliminate it. The free market threatens the system of state control in the case of state socialism. In the case of corporate socialism, the free market represents an impediment to the unhampered accumulation of wealth. The corporate socialists do not mean to eliminate profit. Quite to the contrary, they mean to increase it and keep it all to themselves.

Socialism is the monopoly over the state, education, cultural institutions, and the economy.

To ensure and appreciate profits to the fullest, corporate socialists seek to eliminate competition and the free market. Anthony B. Sutton wrote in Wall Street and FDR that for the 19th-century corporate socialists:

The only sure road to the acquisition of massive wealth was monopoly: drive out your competitors, reduce competition, eliminate laissez-faire, and above all get state protection for your industry through compliant politicians and government regulation.

The difference between state socialism and corporate socialism, then, is merely that a different set of monopolists are in control. Under state socialism, the monopoly is held by the state. Under corporate socialism, the monopolists are giant corporations. But both are characterized by monopoly.

And both systems use socialist-communist ideology—or in the recent incarnation, "social justice" or "woke" ideology—to advance their agendas. For corporate socialism, corporate monopoly is the desired end and socialist ideology is among the means. Socialist ideology works to the benefit of monopolists because it demonizes competition and the free market in an effort to eliminate them. This explains why capitalist corporations like Amazon and mega-wealthy capitalist donors like George Soros actually fund organizations with explicitly socialist agendas, like Black Lives Matter.

The difference between state socialism and corporate socialism, then, is merely that a different set of monopolists are in control.

We can see the corporate socialist plan in action with the COVID-19 lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots. The draconian lockdown measures employed by Democratic governors and mayors and the destruction perpetrated by the rioters are doing the work that corporate socialists want done. Is it any wonder that corporate elites favor leftist politics? Leftist politics are helping to destroy small businesses, thus eliminating competitors.

As the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) points out, the lockdowns and riots have combined to level a one-two punch that is knocking out millions of small businesses—"the backbone of the American economy"—all across America. FEE reported that…7.5 million small businesses in America are at risk of closing their doors for good. A more recent survey showed that even with federal loans, close to half of all small business owners say they'll have to shut down for good. The toll has already been severe. In New York alone, stay-at-home orders have forced the permanent closure of more than 100,000 small businesses.

Moreover, minority-owned businesses are the most at-risk. Even the illustrious Andrew Cuomo agrees: "They are 90 percent of New York's businesses and they're facing the toughest challenges."

Meanwhile, as FEE also notes, there is no evidence that the lockdowns have done anything to slow the spread of the virus. Likewise, there is no evidence that Black Lives Matter has done anything to help Black lives. If anything, the riotous and murderous campaign of Black Lives Matter and Antifa had proven that Black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter. In addition to murdering Black people, the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protest riots have done enormous damage to Black businesses and neighborhoods, and thus, to Black lives.

As small businesses have been crushed by the combination of draconian lockdowns and riotous lunacy, corporate giants like Amazon have thrived like never before. The two developments "just so happen" to move us closer to corporate socialism.

At least three of the tech giants—Amazon, Apple, and Facebook—have appreciated massive gains during the lockdowns.

As BBC News noted, at least three of the tech giants—Amazon, Apple, and Facebook—have appreciated massive gains during the lockdowns, gains which were no doubt abetted by the riots. During the three months ending with June, Amazon's "quarterly profit of $5.2bn (£4bn) was the biggest since the company's start in 1994 and came despite heavy spending on protective gear and other measures due to the virus." Amazon's sales rose by 40% in the three month's ending in June. As reported by TechCrunch.com, Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram platforms saw a 15% rise in users, which brought revenues to a grand total $17.74 billion in the first quarter. Facebook's total users climbed to 3 billion Internet users in March, or two-thirds of the world's Internet users, a record for the platform. Apple's revenues soared during the same period, with quarterly earnings rising 11% year-on-year to $59.7 billion. "Walmart, the country's largest grocer, said profits rose 4 percent, to $3.99 billion," during the first quarter of 2020, as reported by the Washington Post.

These same corporations are also major supporters of Black Lives Matter and affiliated groups. As cnet.com reported, "Google has committed $12 million, while both Facebook and Amazon are donating $10 million to various groups that fight against racial injustice. Apple is pledging a whopping $100 million for a new Racial Equity and Justice Initiative that will 'challenge the systemic barriers to opportunity and dignity that exist for communities of color, and particularly for the black community' according to Apple CEO Tim Cook."

Is it just a coincidence that small businesses have been more than decimated by the COVID-19 lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots, while the corporate giants consolidate their grip on the economy, as well as their power over individual expression on the Internet and beyond? Or, do the lockdowns and the riots prove that corporate socialism is afoot in America? And is woke capitalism merely a concerted PR campaign for appeasing activists and blacks in order to curry favor and avoid cancel culture? Or, does woke capitalism actually express globalist corporate interests? What would a politics that serves such interests look like?

Leftist politics align perfectly with the global interests of monopolistic corporations and woke capitalism is the corporate expression of such interests.

To benefit the globalist agenda of corporate interests, those of monopolies or near monopolies, a political creed would likely promote the free movement of labor across national borders and thus would be internationalist rather than nationalist. The global corporate monopolies or would-be monopolies would likely benefit from the creation of utterly new identity types for new niche markets, and thus would welcome and encourage gender pluralism, transgenderism, and other identity morphisms. The disruption of stable gender identity categories erodes and contributes to the dismantling of the family, or the last bastion of influence between the people and corporate power. Ultimately, the global capitalist corporation would benefit from a singular globalized governmental monopoly with one set of laws, and thus would promote a borderless internationalism under a global government, otherwise known as globalism. And the corporate socialists would benefit from the elimination of small businesses.

How does this line up with leftism? Contemporary leftism has the same objectives. Leftism encourages unfettered immigration. It encourages gender pluralism and transgenderism and openly calls for the dissolution of the family. It seeks to destroy historical memory, inherited culture, Christianity, and the nation state. It aims at a one-world monopoly of government. And it despises free enterprise.

Thus, leftist politics align perfectly with the global interests of monopolistic corporations and woke capitalism is the corporate expression of such interests.

Michael Rectenwald is a former NYU Professor and the author of ten books, including his most recent, Beyond Woke. His novel, The Thought Criminal, is due out on December 1st.

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?