What if #MeToo Held Capitalist Predators to Account Too?

The #MeToo Movement has held sexual predators in positions of power who abuse that power to account. Wouldn’t it be nice to also see a similar movement holding predatory capitalists, most of whose victims are women, similarly to account?

This entry was posted on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

6 thoughts on “What if #MeToo Held Capitalist Predators to Account Too?

  1. The ugly difference is that these guys are paraded as role-models. Rich therefore successful therefore meant to be emulated. From media exposure and even talking to actual human beings one gets the impression that one is supposed to venerate the Steve Jobses of the world.

    Weinstein and his ilk at least had the good sense to not advertise their perversions. Weinstein did advertise being an insider who makes careers, and was politically connected and whatnot, but they went to enormous lengths to keep the sexual predations under wraps, quite successfully for many years.

    (Admittedly, there are those predators who brag about their “conquests” under duress, or even wanna-be predators who go to great lengths to project the image of themselves as sexual predator. I’m thinking of a particular person who shall not be named – suffice to say that Ted wrote a book about this person and he currently holds the highest office in the U.S. when not golfing.)

    None of these jokers is remotely like a Henry Ford or a Thomas Edison (who both certainly had their dark sides but indisputably visionaries bent on transforming the very way we live). Nor could anyone make a coherent case for *any* of the super-rich that “earning” those stacks of money made the world a more interesting let alone a better place (not a high bar and arguably true for Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey who at least gave people something tangible).

    Currency speculation (George Soros), buying actual companies at fire-sale prices to sell off chunks and shipping the rest overseas like a bad Richard Gere in Pretty Woman (e.g. Mitt Romney), outright theft (Gates, Zuckerberg), inheriting Daddy’s company (Kochs), really? Slightly shinier tablets and electrified horseless carriages? That’s all you got, 21st century capitalism?

    It’s true that building a coffee-house monopoly and milking it like a double latte cinnamon chocolate truffle coffee with extra sugar – and precious little room left for the actual coffee – does seem like a lesser evil in comparison.

    What Mitt Romney did to General Motors (as reported by Greg Palast) should have left him with 0.5% not close to 50% approval (of voters, so ~25% popular support, but still). Trump University alone should have done in the person I wasn’t going to name but just did, d’oh.

    I think this is really why so much energy is going into Russiagatenormal corruption, mass scams, even money laundering for drug cartels and whatnot are basically off-limits, unless to venerate the perversions, since nobody to the right of Ted is going to touch late capitalism business as usual.

    • « he currently holds the highest office in the U.S. when not golfing» Andreas, please be so kind as to clarify for this ignorant foreigner if during the time he golfs, that man does not hold that office ? I have been of the impression that ever since Dwight David Eisenhower’s time, golfing has been one of a US president’s most essential tasks….


    • > The ugly difference is that these guys are paraded as role-models

      I know, right? I used to see this one guy in the company lunchroom. He was so fat he could just barely waddle, rolls of fat around his knees & elbows. Every day he got the full meal du jour, a hamburger basket with fries, a couple slices of pizza, two or three deserts and a couple bags of chips.

      Is this guy a role model? To me, he’s no different than one of these multi-millionaires forgoing life in order to make even more money he doesn’t need. I do not want my kid emulating either one of them.

  2. Eh, Robespierre might have had the right idea.

    That said, Howard Schultz is actually one of the better capitalists. He raised wages for the worker bees on his own initiative, helped them with college, supported gay rights before it was cool, supported open carry in his stores right up until they became a political football – then asked the proponents to NOT make Starbucks a political football.

    Which isn’t to say his pay is not excessive, only that he’s not as bad as say .. the Koch Bros.

    Me, I’m no fan of Starbucks. They over-roast coffees that are better medium-roasted (Sumatra, Kona, Jamaica Blue Mountain…). From that I assume they’re not in it for the love of coffee. Must be some other motivation.

    From my post, you may assume I’m a coffee snob. I can live with that. .;-)

Leave a Reply