Reader Comments: Thankful for Farmworkers; Mamdani and Wilson - Democratic Socialists and FDR Democrats; Legal Orders; What We Forgot About Socialism; Raising Taxes on the Ultrarich; New Approach to Getting Rid of Citizens United; The Montana Plan;
Because the ACA is under attack by the Republicans which would impact millions we have to defend it. But the Democrats, who are also wedded to “free markets”, could have created a universal healthcare system but didn’t.
Great article in The Nation, then rerun on xxxxxx, on Trump’s smothering NLRB & thus removing the longstanding arbiter since New Deal of workers’ rights.
Members in great numbers can be trained and deployed with little delay. Then mobilized to reach out to the unorganized workers who surround us on all sides. There is no need for more complicated “studies” to find them, or expensive conferences to delay the task. New organizers must be trained basic-training style, and sent to the workplaces. Older and retired organizer talent must be tapped and mobilized, offsetting today’s dire experience deficit. It’s time for salting to be deployed on a massive scale in multiple industries, joining those salts already in place.
There is no time to wait for perfect targets to be discovered or developed. The unions who come forward can be pushed to do more. Those who sit it out will be bypassed. The labor left must mobilize, to stimulate individual participation as well as to place pressure on the unions to take this necessary action.
(FYI: a press pool spray is a brief photo opportunity, like after a White House meeting.) The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) visited the Oval Office and Trump defended MBS’ murder and dismemberment of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi by saying, “things happen.”
Writing "The Red Riviera" taught me that even flawed socialist systems offered insights into equality, solidarity, and the dignity of everyday life.
Twenty years ago, in November of 2005, Duke University Press published my first book: "The Red Riviera: Gender, Tourism, and Postsocialism on the Black Sea." Produced in the wake of socialism's global collapse and the riot of Western triumphalism that ensued, I deployed both qualitative and quantitative methods to advance a simple, but unpopular, argument: For most people in the former Soviet bloc, capitalism sucked.By writing the "small histories" of men and women laboring in Bulgaria's vibrant tourism industry in the decade following their country's mad dash to embrace democracy and free markets, I explored how and why this small southeastern European country transformed from a relatively predictable, orderly, egalitarian society into a chaotic, lawless world of astonishing inequality and injustice. I wrapped my critiques of the rampant neoliberalism of the "Wild, Wild, East" in thickly descriptive accounts of the lives of chambermaids, bartenders, tour guides, cooks, waitresses, and receptionists. I wanted to show, not tell.Through a close examination of the shattered careers and broken families of ordinary men and women forced to live through the cataclysmic decade of the 1990s, I asked readers to empathize with the sheer scale of the upheavals of banking collapses, hyperinflation, unemployment, violence, suicide, and the mass emigration of youth. Capitalism promised prosperity and freedom, but for many it delivered little more than poverty and despair. The dislocations of the transition period, as I've documented in my subsequent books, still reverberate today. One can easily draw a straight line from the trauma of the 1990s to the rise of right-wing parties and authoritarian leaders in the region.Full at:https://inthesetimes.com/article/what-socialism-got-right-soviet-union-communism-capitalism
Now they’re going after nurses and the boy scouts. We’re only one year in, folks! By year four? They’ll go after babies. Music. And Providence, R.I. You heard it here first!
The public has supported raising taxes on the ultrarich and corporations for years, but policymakers have not responded. Small increases in taxes on the rich that were instituted during times of Democratic control of Congress and the White House have been consistently swamped by larger tax cuts passed during times of Republican control. This was most recently reflected in the massive budget reconciliation bill pushed through Congress exclusively by Republicans and signed by President Trump. This bill extended the large tax cuts first passed by Trump in 2017 alongside huge new cuts in public spending. This one-step-forward, two-steps-back dynamic has led to large shortfalls of federal revenue relative to both existing and needed public spending.
Raising taxes on the ultrarich and corporations is necessary for both economic and political reasons. Economically, preserving and expanding needed social insurance and public investments will require more revenue. Politically, targeting the ultrarich and corporations as sources of the first tranche of this needed new revenue can restore faith in the broader public that policymakers can force the rich and powerful to make a fair contribution. Once the public has more faith in the overall fairness of the tax system, future debates about taxes can happen on much more constructive ground.
Policymakers should adopt the following measures:
Tax wealth (or the income derived from wealth) at rates closer to those applied to labor earnings. One way to do this is to impose a wealth tax on the top 0.1% of wealthy households.
Restore effective taxation of large wealth dynasties. One way to do this would be to convert the estate tax to a progressive inheritance tax.
Impose a high-income surtax on millionaires.
Raise the top marginal income tax rate back to pre-2017 levels.
Close tax loopholes for the ultrarich and corporations.
...Between 2008 and 2024, reported “independent” expenditures by outside groups exploded by more than 28-fold — from $144 million to $4.21 billion. Unreported money also skyrocketed, with dark money groups spending millions influencing the 2024 election.
Most people I talk with assume that the only way to stop corporate and dark money in American politics is either to wait for the Supreme Court to undo Citizens United (we could wait a very long time) or amend the U.S. Constitution (this is extraordinarily difficult).
But there’s another way! I want to tell you about it because there’s a good chance it will work.
It will be on the ballot next November in Montana. Maybe you can get it on the ballot in your state, too.
Here’s the thing: Individual states — either through their legislators or their citizens wielding ballot initiatives — have the authority to limit corporate political activity and dark money spending, because they determine what powers corporations have.
In American law, corporations are creatures of state laws. For more than two centuries, the power to define their form, limits, and privilege has belonged only to the states.
In fact, corporations have no powers at all until a state government grants them some. In the 1819 Supreme Court case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Chief Justice John Marshall established that:
“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence….The objects for which a corporation is created are universally such as the government wishes to promote. They are deemed beneficial to the country; and this benefit constitutes the consideration, and, in most cases, the sole consideration of the grant.”
States don’t have to grant corporations the power to spend in politics. In fact, they could decide not to give corporations that power.
This isn’t about corporate rights, as the Supreme Court determined in Citizens United. It’s about corporate powers.
When a state exercises its authority to define corporations as entities without the power to spend in politics, it will no longer be relevant whether corporations have a right to spend in politics — because without the power to do so, the right to do so has no meaning.
Delaware’s corporation code already declines to grant private foundations the power to spend in elections.
Importantly, a state that no longer grants its corporations the power to spend in elections also denies that power to corporations chartered in the other 49 states, if they wish to do business in that state.
All a state would need to do is enact a law with a provision something like this:
“Every corporation operating under the laws of this state has all the corporate powers it held previously, except that nothing in this statute grants or recognizes any power to engage in election activity or ballot-issue activity.”
Sound farfetched? Not at all.
IIn Montana, local organizers have drafted and submitted a constitutional initiative for voters to consider in 2026 — the first step in a movement built to spread nationwide. It would decline to grant to all corporations the power to spend in elections.
Called the Transparent Election Initiative, it wouldn’t overturnCitizens United — it would negate the consequences of Citizens United....
Note to governors and state legislators: The Citizens United decision is enormously unpopular. Some 75 percent of Americans disapprove of it. But most of your governors and state legislators haven’t realized that you have the authority to make Citizens United irrelevant. My recommendation to you: Use that authority to rid the nation of Citizens United.
The Montana Plan, a breakthrough legal strategy, will stop corporate and dark money cold. It's how Montanans will beat Citizens United and take back our politics. Learn about what it is and how it's headed toward Montana's 2026 ballot. Montana can do it, and your state can too!
What is The Montana Plan?
The Montana Plan uses the States authority to define what powers corporations get and stops giving them the power to spend in our politics. Montana can do it, and your state can too! Learn how!
A Power Move
For more than a century, Montana, like every state, has given all corporations the power to do everything legal. Turns out, we don't have to do that.
It's Up to Us
States don't have to give corporations the power to spend in politics. So The Montana Plan simply stops granting that power.
Bypasses Citizens United
Citizens United held that corporations had a right to spend in politics. But if a corporation doesn't have the power to act, that right can't be used. That makes Citizens United irrelevant.
How Montana Can Act
Montana's laws include three powerful provisions that give us a clear path toward keeping corporations out of our politics:
1 Power to Alter or Revoke
Montana law explicitly allows the state to change or repeal its corporate code at any time, for any reason. No corporation has a permanent claim to any power—or to existence!
2 Universal Application
Changes to Montana's corporation law apply to all corporations—new and existing alike. Every corporation can be redefined by rewriting the law behind it.
3 Out-of-State Corporation Limits
Montana plays fair: Out-of-state corporations can only exercise the same powers here that Montana corporations have. If Montana corporations can't spend in our politics, neither can they.
Together, these provisions mean Montana has full authority to no longer grant corporations the power to spend in our politics—across the board, and for good. We'll need your help. The Transparent Election Initiative is spearheading a ballot initiative that gives Montana voters the ability to implement The Montana Plan. Volunteer, engage, and sign the petition when ready!
