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
capitalism
Working People Must Recognize the Basis of Class Struggle
Polls suggest that working people are becoming more aware that our economic model is failing them. Regrettably, this increasing discontent stops at addressing the symptoms rather than the cause cemented into our economic model.
Mar 01, 2026
Currently working people are inveterately distracted with attacks on the Constitution by MAGA gangsters, thugs, and reprobates.
Another distraction is the heinous protection of the international cabal of rich men guilty of exploiting young girls in the Epstein criminal network.
A third distraction is indoctrinating working people into supporting a glutted military budget while cutting programs for working people.
Distractions
General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned working people in 1961 of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."
The root cause of unemployment, underemployment, and inflation is the wage and salary component of our economic model.
It results in violations of international laws to protect corporate profits in foreign countries like Venezuela; that includes the murder of innocent civilians in cruising boats.
However, a not so obvious din of these distractions is designed to numb Americans from zeroing in on the foundation of their chronic economic adversity and anxiety.
That foundation is the wage and salary construct of our economic model.
Economic Model Decline
The symptoms of the decline of our economic model are well documented.
The Ludwig Institute of Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) reported a functional unemployment rate in November 2025 of 24.8%. LISEP reported a real inflation rate of 9.4%.
Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, (ALICE) reported that 42% of households in the US were below the ALICE threshold of poverty.
The underemployment rate reported by the Burning Glass Institute in February 2024 was 52% for college graduates.
These are chronic symptoms of an economic model that cannot provide an equitable and moral distribution of employment opportunities. If you harbor the belief that anyone here can become rich or wealthy, think again.
Progressives recognize that the Republican Party has devolved into a fascist cult. The evidence is Project 2025 and screams daily that our government is being replaced by rich con artists inside the Trump administration swamp.
However, polls do suggest that working people are becoming more aware that our economic model is failing them.
Regrettably, this increasing discontent stops at addressing the symptoms rather than the cause cemented into our economic model.
Many progressive politicians, scholars, academics, and journalists go to the water's edge of the cause, but cravenly avoid a discussion of the that cause.
Upton Sinclair’s assertion in 1935 is applicable:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. (“I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked”)
Root Cause
The root cause of unemployment, underemployment, and inflation is the wage and salary component of our economic model. To understand how that model is inherently exploitative and inequitable, the basics must be understood.
The following is a simplified example on that process.
The primary purpose of our economy is to return a private profit to the business owner.
The basic opportunities for a contented lifestyle are decreasing.
There are two types of investment that the business owner must spend.
First is expenditures on space, plant, machinery, tools, hardware, software, technological advances, and raw materials. This includes legal registrations, licenses, permits, and financial services. Often, the business owner inherits the business so this expenditure may be minimized.
Next, the business owner must purchase the physical or mental efforts of the employees. It is realized in the form of wages and salaries.
The employees create the products or services that the business owner sells in the market. In spite of the delusions of many business owners, no business owner creates those products or services alone. It is a social process.
If the business owner paid the employees the salary and wages equal to the value of the products or services created by them, there would be no profit.
Hence, there would be no reason to continue the business. Moreover, the business owner must compete with other business owners to sell as much as possible and minimize costs. Parenthetically, layoffs and recessions crushing working people are the usual remedy for the business owner.
Specific Example
The business owner must sell the products or services created by the employees at a price above the amount spent on wages and salaries.
In this example, a male employee works a typical nine to five workday.
In that workday, the employee works for wages or a salary that will allow him to maintain himself or his family.
However, inside that workday is the key to the exploitation and moral flaw in this economic process. It appears that the employee is being paid for working a full day, but that is not the case.
The business owner must calculate the amount paid to the employee based on how much is required for a private profit.
The employee is working some hours to provide a profit for the owner and some hours to maintain himself or his family.
In this example, in one workday the business owner pays $50 an hour for all the initial expenditures listed above to create one product.
The employee must be paid to create the product or service. By an arbitrary calculation of the business owner, it is $10 an hour.
The business owner must sell the product or service in the market by charging an amount above what has been spent already to produce it. It was created for $50 plus $10 which equals $60.
However, the business owner must sell the product or service for $70 each to obtain a profit of $10. The “new” value of the product or service is $70, yet it cost $60 to create.
If the employee created a product or service that is worth $70, it is inescapable that the employee is not being compensated for the value that he created. This is basic exploitation of unpaid labor and, in most spiritual belief systems, immoral.
Perceptive Voices
Pope John XXIII wrote on this subject:
We therefore consider it our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner. (Mater et Magistra May 15, 1961)
Martin Luther King commented on this moral flaw:
We are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism... There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children (1966)
Malcolm X, American Muslim leader, spoke at one of his speeches at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City in 1964:
You show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker.
Consequences
The inherent exploitation of our economic model begins at the wage and salary level. From there we organize, produce, transport and distribute goods and services. Private profit for the business owner supersedes all other values.
In the US we have seen the values of community, family, and social sentiment diminished. Those values are overwhelmed by a tsunami of advertising urging working people into a conspicuous consumption of material items whether needed or not.
Simultaneously is the harsh economic reality for working people. The basic opportunities for a contented lifestyle are decreasing. Those opportunities are quality and affordable healthcare, smart and accessible education, safe and comfortable housing, healthy nutrition, and a clean environment.
This dilemma can be addressed by providing the material opportunities above with policies formed by the best of spiritual and secular values.
That can only be realized by a transition to an economic model based on realistic democratic principles and collective profits.
Otherwise, the present economic immiseration and despair will continue to transform working people into a morass of fear and hatred seeking scapegoats to blame. They will become an alienated, vapid mass of untethered individuals at the mercy of the soulless and parasitic oligarchs who live off the products and services of their labor.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Honoring Michael Parenti, Who Kept the Torch of the US Left Lit and Sharply Afire
Parenti stands out as uniquely courageous and unapologetic in directly confronting capitalism, US imperialism, and the manifold corruptions and inequities of society’s powerful.
Feb 28, 2026
Michael Parenti, who died on January 24 at the age of 92, blazed a long, brave, and often lonely trail through American political thought and radical politics. The author of more than 25 books, including such many-editioned classics as Democracy for the Few and Inventing Reality, Parenti leaves behind a rich and vital legacy of intellectual and moral clarity.
Arguably one of the most influential thinkers and writers on the US left this past half-century, Parenti stands out as uniquely courageous and unapologetic in directly confronting capitalism, US imperialism, and the manifold corruptions and inequities of society’s powerful. Where many liberal writers bemoaned corporations and the rich, Parenti educated generations (including this writer) about capitalism’s fundamental contradictions and intrinsic forces of inequality, harm, and destruction.
Parenti grew up in a working-class family in East Harlem in New York City, and worked for a few years after high school before obtaining his BA from City College of New York. From there, he gained a teaching fellowship at Brown University, where he earned his MA, then earned his PhD at Yale University. Parenti taught at a slew of different colleges and universities across the United States, eventually becoming an itinerant lecturer and writer after he was widely blackballed from academia for his ideology and activism.
In 1970, Dr. Parenti’s career as a professor was derailed when he was clubbed by police while protesting the shootings of students at Kent State, leading to his ouster from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He soon resettled at the University of Vermont, which then booted him when he was convicted for the protest altercation. Parenti became part of the Green Mountain State’s upwelling of political ferment. He ran for Congress in 1974 on the Liberty Union ticket, netting third place with 7% of the vote, while his then-friend Bernie Sanders garnered 4% in his run for the US Senate.
At a time when the most radical US political rebellions are sadly emanating from the fascist, bigoted MAGA right, what we so urgently need is a fierce, disciplined, unapologetic, nonviolent uprising from the progressive left.
While growing up in this fertile milieu of 1970s Vermont, I met Parenti through our interconnected communities and chatted with him many times over the years. Alongside his brilliance and courage, Parenti was warm, amiable, engaging, and funny. He had a visceral humanity and compassion to him that embedded both his interactions and his writing.
“What the military-industrialists fail to see is that the pyramid of power and profit they build rests on a crumbling base,” he wrote in a 1981 essay in The Progressive, one of several pieces he contributed to this magazine between 1975-1992. “Ultimately, no political-economic order can remain secure by victimizing its own people. Sooner or later, this truth returns to haunt the mighty.”
One trademark Parenti talent was his ability to pierce through clotted, contorted mainstream narratives with sharp original insights. A favorite of mine comes from a speech he gave before a packed auditorium at the University of Colorado in 1986:
The Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money... Most countries are rich. The Philippines are rich. Brazil is rich. Mexico is rich. Chile is rich. Only the people are poor. There’s billions to be made there, to be carved out and to be taken. There’s been billions, for 400 years, the capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labor... These countries are not underdeveloped, they are over-exploited.
The crowd erupted in thunderous applause, as often happened at a Parenti speech.
Many of Parenti’s works, while maligned or dismissed by mainstream critics, have proven to be startlingly prescient. Democracy for the Few, first published in 1974, provides a trenchant original analysis of the multi-layered relationships between economic and political power. A few short quotes from the book bear chillingly close resemblance to the intertwinement of money and politics today:
The close relationship between politics and economics is neither neutral nor coincidental. Large governments evolve through history in order to protect large accumulations of property and wealth.
It is ironic that people of modest means sometimes become conservative out of a scarcity fear bred by the very capitalist system they support.
In almost every enterprise, government has provided business with opportunities for private gain at public expense. Government nurtures private capital accumulation through a process of subsidies, supports, and deficit spending and an increasingly inequitable tax system.
In his 1986 book, Inventing Reality, Parenti delivers a searing and wise indictment of corporate mass media that goes beyond standard critiques. While liberal critics of corporate media may decry big business control of journalism, Parenti’s examination dug deeper into core fundamentals of capitalism: “As with any business, the mass media’s first obligation is to make money for their owners,” he wrote, and these wealthy owners “determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public.”
As a young, budding journalist when Inventing Reality was first published, I learned a great deal, not only about who owns and controls the media, but also about the many hidden biases embedded in US journalism stemming largely from that economic power. As Parenti often pointed out, mainstream media discourse typically spans a narrow political continuum from liberal to conservative, rarely including any radical or progressive perspectives, particularly ones like Parenti’s which confront capitalism directly.
Ironically, following Michael’s passing, the New York Times ran a lengthy obituary piece that illustrated many of these biases, highlighting mainstream criticisms of Parenti’s “uncompromising” stances and terming his speaking style as “feisty and animated.” Displaying some of the biases Parenti long critiqued, Times staffer Trip Gabriel wrote, “Parenti seemed to view every American domestic challenge as the fault of capitalism and every US foreign venture as an act of militarized imperialism.” As if such an assessment is somehow objectively inaccurate.
Parenti’s passing is especially notable and poignant due to the dearth of radical political thought and leadership in the United States today. While he was often outcast and blackballed throughout much of academia, he was of a now-gone generation on the left that, at least to some extent, retained its radicalism and Marxist analysis. In this respect, Parenti and his ideas came from the Old Left of the 1930s to the 1960s, rather than the New Left movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which often diverged from Marxism and communism.
In today’s chaotic and confusing political landscape, we have left-progressive figures of varying prominence and radicalism, but very few who, like Parenti, directly confront capitalism and its structural, systematic destruction, rather than simply chronicling the many anecdotes of its impacts.
Parenti’s legacies are many and important. Through his books and countless lectures, he inspired generations of progressive-left activists and thinkers. He kept the American left’s torch, so often flickering and adrift, lit and sharply afire.
But there’s another reason I think it’s time for many to discover or revisit Michael Parenti’s prolific oeuvre. At a time when the most radical US political rebellions are sadly emanating from the fascist, bigoted MAGA right, what we so urgently need is a fierce, disciplined, unapologetic, nonviolent uprising from the progressive left.
Parenti’s old one-time friend, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called for political revolution when he ran for president in 2016 and 2020. We hear less of that call to action today, when so much of our political energy and time are consumed by our desperate defenses against President Donald Trump’s hideous autocracy.
Amid the daily chaos and maelstroms over Trump’s unrelenting assaults on immigrants, human, and civil rights, our environment, and this nation’s withering democracy, the “Overton window” of the politically possible has been squelched nearly shut. These days, even many progressives have been at least temporarily reduced to anti-Trumpers and, to some degree, to the dreary-grim “Blue no matter who” camp. We could really use the bold radicalism of Michael Parenti now, with his piercing ferocity and that iconic moral and intellectual clarity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the US Media Is in Crisis and How to Rescue It
What we’re witnessing isn’t a singular breakdown, but discrete and cascading layers of “media capture” by capitalists, oligarchs, and authoritarians that produce censorship, exclusion, and democratic failure.
Feb 17, 2026
From the recent gutting of the Washington Post to the rightward lurch of CBS, the sheer proliferation and variation of media failures and attacks on the press during Trump 2.0 are difficult to grasp. Regulatory bodies have become political weapons. Major news organizations have complied and retreated. Media ownership has consolidated in the hands of a few feckless billionaires. Taken together, these developments endanger our information and communication systems, our First Amendment freedoms, and our democracy. Yet they resist easy synthesis.
This essay offers a schematic for making sense of the chaos. I argue that what we’re witnessing isn’t a singular breakdown, but discrete and cascading layers of “media capture” that produce censorship, exclusion, and democratic failure. This analysis is a necessary first step towards structurally reforming—and, ultimately transforming—our media institutions and infrastructures to privilege democratic needs over profit and power.
The polycrisis afflicting our media necessitates a political economic analysis that focuses on ownership, control, and market structure. It also calls for critical analyses of how law and policy determine such power relationships—both how they’re weaponized against democracy and how they could be deployed to create a more democratic media system.
To understand contemporary media failures, we must tease apart overlapping but distinct forms of capture. There’s often a tendency to focus on state capture of media, especially in countries experiencing democratic backsliding, where both public and private media systems fall under government influence and control. US media failures, however, require a broader lens. Here, authoritarian encroachment is dependent upon preexisting forms of media capture—capitalistic and oligarchic. Below, I analyze how these layers build on each other but require different interventions.
Capitalistic Capture
Extreme commercialization has long defined the US media system. The US newspaper industry became highly commercialized in the late 1800s with its increased reliance on advertising revenues. US broadcast media followed a similar hyper-commercialized path when policymakers in the early 1930s essentially privatized the public airwaves instead of building a public media system. As a result, several corporate media networks came to dominate radio and flooded it with advertising-supported programming.
Television replicated radio’s hyper-commercialized model, with the very same corporations dominating another lightly regulated medium. Although the US eventually established a public broadcasting system in the late 1960s, it remained chronically underfunded—literally almost off the chart compared to other democracies in federal funding per capita. And Congress entirely rescinded even that paltry support last year.
Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post for less than half of what he paid for his superyacht, and now he’s dismantling the paper while currying favor with President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, the few public interest protections that were installed to protect media diversity from unfettered capitalism—like the long-dead Fairness Doctrine—were gradually weakened or jettisoned altogether. The “Postwar Settlement,” a social compact which allowed commercial media to remain lightly regulated if they practiced social responsibility, has come undone over the ensuing decades as commercial logics overwhelmed public interest protections and professional norms.
The commercialization of US digital media began in earnest in the 1990s when the internet’s infrastructure, originally funded by the National Science Foundation, was privatized with little public debate. Today, capitalist logics permeate the entire digital stack, from the wires that deliver internet services to our homes (if we can afford the exorbitant rates from the “broadband cartel”), to the targeted advertising that operates as the internet’s core business model. Artificial intelligence is now following this same well-worn path.
In the extremely inegalitarian US, where billionaires command disproportionate power, treating our media as private commodities instead of public services all but guarantees concentration in the hands of oligarchs. To give one glaring example, Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post for less than half of what he paid for his superyacht, and now he’s dismantling the paper while currying favor with President Donald Trump. With primary media organizations reduced to the playthings of plutocrats, media oligarchy becomes the dominant paradigm.
Oligarchic Capture
As ownership concentration accelerates, US information markets tend toward monopolies and oligopolies. This trend, endemic to lightly regulated capitalist systems, has only increased with the erosion of media ownership restrictions, from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to more recent “deregulatory” moves during two Trump administrations.
Extreme corporate consolidation creates a wide range of social hazards and harms. It has allowed Trump-aligned right-wing oligarchs to take control of vast media empires, from the Murdochs to the Ellisons. This kind of capture also manifests in algorithmic gatekeeping, such as Elon Musk’s X selectively amplifying and suppressing political speech. In Canada, Meta is blocking news media on its platform to avoid paying for content. More recently, concerns have risen that TikTok, following its acquisition by Trump-friendly owners, has begun to censor political expression.
Such oligarchic capture is the predictable culmination of what’s essentially a pay-to-play system where the highest bidder takes all. Under this regime, what Americans hear, see, and read is increasingly dictated by a handful of billionaires with their own agendas. These private tyrannies have the luxury of treating their media assets as a kind of “loss leader” for broader political and economic goals. Our hyper-commercialized media system was ready-made for this kind of weaponization, making authoritarian capture easy.
Authoritarian Capture
Highly concentrated media systems are structurally vulnerable to authoritarian capture. This is essentially the Viktor Orban model: Autocrats needn’t take over newsrooms at gunpoint; instead, they can count on friendly oligarchs to police the media for them. As a result, screens and airwaves are flooded with uninterrogated official narratives that flatter the administration in power.
In addition to arresting individual journalists, the Trump administration has engaged in various forms of regulatory intimidation. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Brendan Carr, who’s been known to sport a gold lapel pin featuring Trump’s profile, recently informed Congress that the FCC is not an independent agency. As if to prove the point, Carr has shamelessly used the FCC to carry out Trump’s agenda, often by punishing—or threatening to punish—perceived enemies. He has used mergers as leverage to extort major news companies and influence media coverage favorable to Trump.
If capitalist capture is the foundational condition that turns our media against democracy and enables other types of capture, then the most transformative remedy must confront that root problem.
In other cases, the administration has threatened regulatory intervention against recalcitrant media companies and individual commentators, such as the comedian Jimmy Kimmel. Recently, the FCC has threatened to apply the “equal time” rule—requiring that broadcast media organizations give equal airtime to competing political candidates—against late-night and daytime television shows, which previously had been exempt from this rule. As the Trump administration bullies the media, many organizations have capitulated.
While shifts in media ownership and conglomeration are often narrated as natural developments—often featuring dramatic twists and turns of individual protagonists and business interests—it’s important to remember that our media institutions are human-made, structured, and maintained through law and policy. They’re subject to change if we as a society so wish. We must resist any sense of inevitability and dare to imagine democratic alternatives.
What’s To Be Done?
One line of defense against authoritarian media capture is public interest regulation. But decades of regulatory capture—where government agencies internalize the logics and imperatives of the industries they purportedly regulate—have hollowed out such normative foundations, rendering them vulnerable to co-option and “discursive capture.” With anti-democratic tendencies already entrenched, new federal policies are nonstarters for the near term, though targeted state and local initiatives may still be viable.
A frequently invoked—though rarely realized—solution to media conglomerates is to simply break them up. Moreover, antitrust arguments have gained prominence amidst a growing anti-monopoly movement, exemplified by Lina Khan’s admirable work chairing the Federal Trade Commission. Such anti-corporate and anti-oligarchic politics clearly resonate with broad swaths of the public and should be encouraged. But this strategy can be overly reliant on competition policy, presupposing that trust-busting a few corporate giants will return social responsibility to the marketplace.
No doubt, preventing or dismantling media conglomeration is critical. We’ve seen the dangers of these vertically and horizontally integrated firms, with tentacles across advertising, content production, distribution, and data extraction. If nothing else, shrinking them and diluting their political and economic power would be real progress.
But dealing with systemic media market failures requires a more fundamental intervention. Competition alone won’t bring local journalism back to news deserts, eliminate surveillance advertising, or guarantee affordable broadband. Furthermore, smaller, profit-driven media entities are likely to exact some of the same social harms as larger ones. Many of these problems are capitalism problems, not just monopoly problems.
Fortunately, the anti-monopoly toolbox contains instruments that do more than tame capitalist excesses through market discipline. For example, the public utility regulatory tradition offers a diverse set of policy tools, ranging from robust public oversight to institutional arrangements approaching municipal and public ownership. These models can directly challenge corrosive capitalist logics at the level of media governance, reflecting a more democratic vision of ownership and control.
If capitalist capture is the foundational condition that turns our media against democracy and enables other types of capture, then the most transformative remedy must confront that root problem. We should endeavor to create non-capitalist information and communication infrastructures. The clearest antidote to hyper-capitalistic media—an argument I’ve made in these pages before—is to remove media from the market altogether and create public alternatives. A “democratic capture” of our media would ensure these institutions serve us all, not just the wealthiest few.
Such a policy program is decidedly ambitious and long-term. It requires not just a Project 2029 but a Project 2050 for structural media reform. Despite such distant projections, we must begin to clearly articulate these plans now. It’s precisely during dark political times that we must assert bold policy visions for a democratic future.
This piece was originally published on the LPE Blog.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular