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.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?