Thorn West: Issue No. 221

State Politics

• A new state legislative session has begun. Both houses have adopted new rules that reduce the amount of bills a member may introduce: from from 50 to 35 in the Assembly and from 40 to 35 in the Senate.

• Though Republicans gained a few seats in the state legislature, Democrats have maintained their supermajority in both houses.

• Several close House races across California have finally been called, with the results favoring Democratic Party candidates. The final split in the House of Representatives will be 220-215 in favor of Republicans.

• The special legislative session called for by Governor Newsom to “Trump-proof” California met for the first time this week. So far, it has introduced legislation to set aside $25 million for potential legislation against the Trump administration (a move which does not require that the legislature be called).

City Politics

• This Saturday, several of DSA-LA’s successfully endorsed candidates for local office will sit with DSA-LA members running for organizational leadership in 2025 for a panel discussion on “what our roadmap to a Los Angeles for the working class looks like in the year ahead.” Click here to find out more or to RSVP (note that this event is only open to DSA-LA members in good standing).

Labor

• Starbucks Workers United is entering a critical phase in contract negotiations, and is organizing solidarity flyering events nationwide. In Los Angeles, DSA-LA is organizing a flyering event on Sunday, December 15, at 2 pm, at the Starbucks at 3785 Wilshire Boulevard. (For more info, email:  labor@dsa-la.org)

Immigration

• StreetsblogLA goes into depth on LA’s new “sanctuary city” ordinance, placing it in the context of the attempts to implement such a law, which have run into the LAPD’s unwillingness to be democratically controlled. The final version of the ordinance was put into effect by a unanimous City Council vote this week.

• Though both the city and state have announced intentions to fight the Trump administration’s stated intention to conduct dystopian levels of deportations, there may be no way to stop the planned construction of a new detention facility that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to build in the state.

NOlympics

• Outgoing City Council President Paul Krekorian has been appointed to lead LA’s newly created “Office of Major Events,” which will oversee, among other things, the Olympic Games in 2028. More from Torched.

• The LA Metro Board has sent a letter to incoming President Trump, asking him to set aside $3.2 billion to fund transportation projects, specifically in support of the Olympics.

Local Media

• A former editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times explains the motive for his recent resignation: the ongoing heavy-handed interference of the paper’s billionaire owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, on behalf of the hard right Trump coalition.

Environmental Justice

• LA Public Press spoke with several local experts on the potential impact of a Trump administration on the city and state’s climate policy.

The post Final Election Results in CA + City, State Prepare for 2nd Trump Term appeared first on The Thorn West.

Opening Scene

On the quiet morning of Saturday, November 16th, 2024, I met a retired neurosurgeon from the Carolinas ready for a healthcare revolution. 

He wasn’t alone; over 300 doctors, medical students, and allied health professionals arrived at Venue Six10 in Chicago to take part in Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)’s annual conference. They arrived from across the country, hailing from sprawling health networks and neighborhood clinics, Ivy League academic centers and county hospitals. They were doctors at the end of storied careers and medical students who had not yet spent a full year on the wards – a dynamic group of committed professionals who deeply understood why American healthcare wasn’t working but did not entirely agree on the best next step.

Although most of the American left is familiar with Senator Bernie Sanders’ signature platform, Medicare4All, the attendees at PNHP prefer the more generic concept of “single-payer” to describe a shared idea for a national health insurance covering everyone. This is not to say attendees are not ardent supporters of current insurance plans like Medicare and Medicaid, which respectively enroll 67.7 million and 79.6 million Americans. Indeed, protecting and fortifying these two institutions represents the organization’s legislative roadmap for success. Outgoing PNHP president Dr. Paul Verhoef, a critical care physician currently working in Hawaii, summarized the organization’s vision: a “Triple Aim” that seeks to convert inertia and apathy for change into widespread confidence in a unified, government-managed program. 

A single-payer system cannot be achieved without proving to voters that doctors have the political power to end healthcare profiteering and strengthen “traditional Medicare,” which includes the current benefits afforded to retirees, disabled individuals, and dialysis patients. Alongside these legislative goals, PNHP features a critical research branch to change the medical narrative on for-profit healthcare, as well as a fledgling coalition model of organizing which brings together unions, medical students, retirees, and healthcare justice activists to carry their message into the general populace. 

Opposing Medicare Advantage

In the U.S., the two major political parties are equally guilty of loosening healthcare’s regulatory apparatus and allowing legalized graft to gum up the current system. Both Presidents Trump and Biden encouraged a mass transfer of patients from government-managed Medicare to Medicare Advantage, a network of privately administered insurance providers that bills the government for any retirees it accepts into its risk pool. Medicare “Disadvantage”, as conference lecturers dubbed it, represents a prime example of corporate greed impeding the group’s vision.

First, private insurance companies run aggressive advertiseing campaigns at senior citizens who are promised vision, hearing, and dental plans (which traditional Medicare does not offer) as well as free home nursing assessments if they switch from Medicare to Medicare Advantage. The government agrees to pay insurers a “per-capita” cost for every person covered. On paper, different companies are bidding to provide this insurance to large groups of patients at the lowest possible rates; in practice, insurers seek niche, carve-out populations in specific neighborhoods or with union retirement plans to avoid competition.

Once these patients have been aggregated, the company’s actuaries start calculating the risk of catastrophic health problems they might experience. For retirees, these risks represent the burdens of economic and social disparities experienced throughout life, and future costs of care can be modeled and anticipated using clinical risk factors. 

For example, a college-educated grandmother who just ran a marathon is going to cost significantly less than an elderly nursing home resident struggling with multiple chronic medical conditions and a new cancer diagnosis. To balance out these varying levels of “healthiness,” the government offers higher per-capita payment plans for high-risk patients. The insurance companies have realized they can game risk pools by recategorizing the marathoning grandmother to look sicker on paper. 

Cue the visiting home nurse, who documents that the grandmother actually lives on the second floor of a townhouse with enough stairs to qualify as a fall risk. Then, according to some lab work drawn during the visit, it turns out she meets the criteria for pre-diabetes and has chronically low potassium, which has never been an issue but which now appears in her medical documentation. Suddenly, she bumps over into the higher-tiered risk pool and earns the company a higher per-capita rate. From her perspective, she gets optical and dental insurance that she doesn’t have to purchase on a fixed income, but behind the scenes, she will be limited to the same narrow selection of in-network doctors’s offices and subject to many of the same insurance claim denials and prior authorizations that the average person with private insurance through their job experiences.

Finally, insurance companies can score additional rebates if they meet benchmark health criteria set by the government. These criteria, while conceptually valid, often become a system of automatic flags that prompt doctors to order repeat tests. In combination, all these perverse incentives, as well as the baseline advertising costs, shareholder dividends, and CEO payouts, add up to a significantly inflated cost of care compared to traditional Medicare. 

There were numerous slides describing and predicting the rates of overpayment and abuse this kind of system permits, but during the first two hours of the conference I was so overwhelmed by the stream of high density statistics that I didn’t jot down any of the half-dozen charts meant to clinch your conviction that Medicare Advantage is a threat to all healthcare socialists. Instead, I’ll quote one slide by Dr. Adam Gaffney, a powerhouse researcher working out of Cambridge Health Justice Lab: “Medicare Advantage does not only waste money, its business model is based on care denial, and it is undermining the idea of equitable single-tier for the elderly.” 

PNHP Victories

Given all the clear evidence of overpayments, PNHP National has staked out intense opposition to these corporate handouts. Since Medicare Advantage is a federal program, it represents a yearly budget fight between insurance companies and executive-branch employees at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2024, PNHP won a rare budget victory by opposing the above-inflation rate increases that Medicare Advantage lobbyists demanded of the Biden administration. In a coordinated campaign across multiple chapters, activists drew the eyes of enough federal legislators to make CMS wary of continuing business as usual. 

The audience applauded in catharsis when the presenter showed images of insurance company stocks dropping $95 billion after the federal government’s announcement it would limit the rate increase of Medicare Advantage payments. Presenters also told of labor organizers and PNHP allies fighting against the New York City Council, which dropped 250,000 city employees onto an inferior Medicare Advantage plan. These retirees have now won a string of lawsuits to regain their original healthcare benefits and demonstrate another spark of hope against the decades-long onslaught of privatization. 

These individual stories pale in comparison to the immense task of electoral victory required to expand the welfare state. This could be most clearly seen in President Biden’s failure to pass Build Back Better, which would have included provisions that strengthened traditional Medicare in the form of adding vision, dental, and hearing insurance to every beneficiary. PNHP was a staunch supporter of Build Back Better in order to meet its Triple Aim, but obviously represented just a fraction of the progressive pressure that failed to win Senator Manchin’s vote of support. From one perspective, the structure of the U.S. Senate represents public enemy number one to members of the group seeking to achieve a single-payer system; from another, it is the only formidable barrier that has protected the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid expansion from hostile Republicans. This could not have been clearer than when a medical student leaned over during Dr. Verhoef’s presentation to tell me “This guy has no concept of theory of change.” Among PNHP leadership, faith in electoral incrementalism remains the path for welfare expansion. 

Students for a National Health Program

The relationship between Students for a National Health Program (SNaHP) and PNHP is not unlike that of YDSA to DSA. The goal is to capture vibrant student idealism for health equity and pull it into a larger political formation with progression and skill-building. PNHP believes so much in this mission that SNaHP members could attend a bonus half-day of the conference dedicated to organizing during medical training. The 151 who attended on Friday represent the far left of healthcare— future doctors who already have multiple years of experience organizing for Palestinian liberation or abolishing ICE and demand change now. Their very existence demonstrates a keen ability to jump through the hoops of high-stakes meritocratic testing while maintaining a robust bullshit detector against all the pageantry of co-opted social movements professed by medical school deans.

The Friday afternoon SNaHP Summit at nearby Roosevelt University included breakout groups teaching students how to write testimony, build campaigns, and organize medical school events to teach fellow classmates about single-payer policies. I appreciated how these organizers had deeply analyzed the structure of medical school curricula to maximize impact. “Spreading propaganda is super-important to us,” said one presenter while discussing essential rules to prevent the message from falling flat; for example, never host an event on the week of an exam, host events after mandatory lectures when classmates are already on campus, always offer food for students, and give every member who commits to organizing an event a named position in that SNaHP chapter for their résumé. “Your medical school, as a rule, wants you to do their work for free,” noted another presenter while pulling up a slide with the national curricular requirements for what medical schools must teach students about health policy. It’s an open secret that if you design a lecture that meets a teaching requirement, your professor will probably use it to cut costs even if it contains a pro single-payer message. 

The most well-attended SNaHP breakout session was a packed room of over 40 students who wanted a chance to hear from labor organizers. For doctors, clinical training includes a mandatory 3-7 years after medical school in a hospital-based program called residency. These programs are notoriously exploitative, often expecting trainees to work 24- to 28-hour call shifts and up to 80 hours a week without overtime pay. Since 1957, several waves of resident unionization have occurred in response to these conditions, first at public hospitals in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and followed by other cities predominantly across the West Coast, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and New England. 

Currently, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union)-affiliated Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR) represents the nation’s largest physician union with over 33,000 residents, and it’s estimated up to 25% of the resident trainee sector are now unionized. In recent years, CIR members passed resolutions in support of a national single-payer program and a ceasefire in Gaza. Recently unionized members spoke highly of their relationship to the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC), a joint venture between the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and DSA as a way to build up organizing capacity before CIR took on their case. I met several doctors familiar with or members of DSA which speaks to the growing networks between health justice projects and labor organizing. 

The union organizing session had been held at previous SNaHP summits, and this year’s version was attended by current CIR president Dr. Taylor Walker. Dr. Walker made a clear pitch that medical students should join the labor movement to propel health justice projects like abortion care, medical debt relief, and Palestinian liberation into a democratic debate at the workplace. This vision would serve both medical workers and their patients, and the rising leadership who will pilot PNHP in the coming years agreed. Talking to both current CIR members and doctors who have completed residency, a SNaHP-to-CIR-to-PNHP pipeline represents a promising model for maintaining an organized formation of progressive physicians. Each organization would contribute to a doctor’s organizing skills parallel to the steps of their medical education. 

Dr. Arya Zandvakili, an infectious disease physician in Iowa who is now approaching the final hurdle of his sub-specialist training, is one such representative of this new batch of mid-career doctors who remains motivated to show up for PNHP. “People are going into financial ruin and debt,” he told me when I asked him what draws him to the organization. “Single-payer is a way to get universal healthcare that’s economically efficient.” However, even if we count on a burgeoning labor movement and a rising generation of radical doctor organizers, it’s still unclear how to translate power into politics. 

State or Federal

Though all PNHP members have made the same conclusions as Dr. Zandvakili given the data at hand, the conference did not clarify a best path forward. One flyer being passed around called for organizing state-managed single-payer insurance plans. This would allow progressive states to bypass federal roadblocks and roll out a one-size-fits-all plan for their populations. This is far from perfect. Some fear a small state like Vermont or Rhode Island would go bankrupt under such legislation and set a bad example for the national project (full disclosure: I have previously testified at the Rhode Island Statehouse in favor of a Medicare4All-style bill). For the New York Metro chapter of PNHP, which has its own staff organizer supporting their campaign for the New York Health Act, it would mean leading the country with an exemplary model of universal coverage. Even this project requires federal backing, however, as the CMS would have to be granted permission to deliver its federal insurance money as a lump sum payout to New York, which would then dispense care.

Debate within PNHP chapters about state-based programs remains contentious. Dr. Cheryl Kunis, a nephrologist from New York, told me she’s skeptical of state-based single-payer legislation. “It’s unethical for New York to have it, but the rest of the country does not have it.” No one knows if a single state could bear the burden of a democratic experiment, or how citizens in neighboring states would respond to the free care next door. Nothing from the lecture about PNHP’s triple aim— stop profiteering, improve traditional Medicare, and win single-payer— supports or disavows an alternative state-managed path to victory. By side-stepping the all-important question of implementation, it feels like PNHP has held off from the big unknown at the center of the project: who is actually going to wield the democratic power that commands private insurance companies to get lost? 

At the end of the day, it seems doctors who’ve stuck it out the longest have seen enough suffering that they’ll take any win they can find. Former PNHP president Dr. Johnathon Ross recalled being snubbed by then-Governor Bill Clinton alongside several thousand activists in Little Rock, Arkansas while trying to pressure him to support single-payer. Back then, he told me, PNHP was much smaller, without formal elections, an active national board, or a SNaHP wing. The organization’s growth over one professional lifetime has been tremendous, but it still doesn’t seem like we’re any closer to a national project succeeding before a state project passes. As we were filing out of a conference room breakout session and back to the main auditorium, Dr. Ross confided in me: “When you look at the history of doing hard things in America, a state always does it first.”

Joey DiZoglio, MD, is a practicing OB/GYN in Wisconsin. He was a former leader of his medical school’s SNaHP chapter and a current dues-paying member of PNHP and DSA.  

The post A REPORT FROM THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

Portland DSA co-chair Brian Denning challenges police intimidation of workers calling for more

On Saturday, November 9, residents of your city rallied outside Revolution Hall to respond to the national and local elections.

I saw school teachers, postal workers, bus drivers, nurses, students, retirees, servers, baristas, city workers, Amazon workers, Intel workers, landscapers, nursing home workers, construction workers, adjunct professors — union members, members of local churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques, three news teams, and at least one recently-elected member of Portland City Council.

There was broad engagement of the working class — the people who make this country function and run. This is how you realize the goal of any enlightened society: democracy. Civic engagement makes our city stronger, and more resilient; two characteristics Portland will require in the months ahead.

We came together under the banner, “Workers Deserve More,” which includes a call for building union membership, a 32-hour work week, and supporting working families with child care costs, among other planks of a platform responding to the needs of working people. The tone of the event expressed a strong consensus against mass deportations, against abortion bans, and for ending the illegal transfer of US arms to Israel.

According to the National Lawyers Guild’s legal observer, the Portland Police Bureau deployed a dozen each of foot police and bicycle cops, two spotter planes, and an armada of marked vehicles around the perimeter.

For a police department with perennial complaints about short-staffing despite its record $295 million budget, it is ludicrous to deploy that level of armed manpower to a rally of 120 people. It is a clear political choice by city leadership to impose budget cuts on most city services while the PPB budget continues to balloon.

Deploying dozens of armed police to this rally was an attempt to intimidate Portland’s residents exercising their right to political speech. Was this level of police action requested by the City Council or the Mayor? Does the out-going City Council or Mayor support Police attempting to intimidate their constituents exercising their rights to political speech?

While we’re on the subject, I’d like to call out the political topics so radical they merited an armed force of 30 riot-ready police and accompanying aircraft:

Protecting abortion rights, protecting workers’ rights, and an opposition to mass deportations —demanding the US government follow the multiple federal acts and laws prohibiting weapons being exported to countries engaged in war crimes and genocide — to stop exporting arms to Israel.

Is it ‘radical’ to ask the federal government to follow the laws of our land? Is demanding that the US not be complicit in an ongoing genocide such an alarming position in our city, that is requires 30 militarised officers with firearms, tasers, pepper spray, and body armor?

If, in the coming months, there’s a demonstration about health care, will the ratio of police to participants be one armed officer for every two Portlanders? How about climate change or LGBTQ rights? Does that merit a 1:3 ratio of demonstrators to cops? Equal rights for women — do you call the National Guard in for that one?

It turns out that many of the people of Portland find interacting with armed officers of the court, who have qualified immunity and a history of inexplicable violence, to be an experience to be avoided, whenever possible. But don’t tell the police that — they might just spend the next four years pretending that they’re being oppressed again. Portland, however, knows better…

Your constituent,

Brian Denning

Portland Democratic Socialists of America Co-Chair

rank-and-file Teamster, Local 162

The post We Reject Portland Police Intimidation appeared first on Portland DSA.

In this episode, Aaron Stauffer (Associate Director, The Wendland-Cook Program in Religion and Justice) joins to discuss faith, the strategies of broad-based community organizing, and the role of sacred values in organizing work. For more on the topic, check out his book: Listening to the Spirit: The Radical Social Gospel, Sacred Value, and Broad-based Community Organizing.

Ohio currently holds a substantial 262.5 million dollars in Israeli Bonds. This is a significant financial tie to a country that is under international scrutiny for its actions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On February 14th, Toledo passed a Ceasefire resolution. Lucas county has chosen to not purchase new Israeli bonds for the time being, but Cuyahoga county is struggling to convince their city council otherwise. Attorney general Dave Yost intervened and shut down a resolution proposed in June of this year calling for any additional investments in Israel, citing Ohio law which makes it illegal for businesses which receive state funding to boycott, divest or sanction Israel. This was passed in 2016 and then again amended in 2022 to include universities that are not public.

Pursuant to Ohio state law, state entities cannot divest interests in Israel. Ohio Revised Code Section 9.76 prohibits the university from divesting any interests in Israel and prohibits adopting or adhering to a policy that requires divestment from Israel or with persons or entities associated with it.

I hope coalitions in the area begin to understand we cannot simply gather for rallies or protests without making our demands clear. This has typically come in the form of requesting for an arms embargo and an immediate ceasefire but this past year has explained to us that our officials are genuinely not interested in empathizing with a country under occupation and struggling to survive in a genocide.

Going forward, I would highly recommend that we begin to act as a single entity on this issue and create an actual pressure campaign focused on very specific targets. Ohio unfortunately is one of the largest offenders of using tax dollars to fund Israel but we can also consider this a very strategic location in our approach to our organic boycott target. Instead of focusing our efforts towards Starbucks and Coca Cola we need to be more deliberate in our approach to better chokehold these targets.

The above listed is the current BDS list for the listed targets for their ties to Israel. Until these companies come forward and condemn their funding and connections to Israel, these should be our targets. In a capitalist world under conglomerates and monopolies, all consumption is unethical. While we can debate the companies off this list we need to use our efforts to create a focus.

Cincinnati is home to P&G HQ, an incredible offender in terms of funding the genocidal machine that is Israel. So, while it is not listed above, this should be our organic local target. To be frank, I spent a couple of days trying to create a loose pamphlet cross referencing all the products owned by P&G and recommended alternatives, but their products amassed in the 100s. While I believe this could be a reasonable solution, to reinforce the simplicity and success of execution, I would highly recommend we simply shop store brands. If at Kroger, buy Kroger's products, at Aldi's the likewise, etc.

I would like to reach out to local coalitions and request they specifically host their rally in front of P&G HQ just to build public awareness on that front, where we all hold signs of specific brands we will be boycotting. I would love to bring to the attention of the body the idea of recalling city council members who aren't willing to stand in solidarity as a power move on our behalf and to hopefully establish that trend across the US. Maybe we are best off targeting whoever requires the lowest number of votes.

by Blair Goodman, MADSA member, co-chair of Equador Working Group on the DSA International Committee and chair of the Training Subcommittee of the DSA Growth and Development Committee

---

As we urgently grapple with Trump’s return to the White House, it’s crucial to swiftly understand the economic and political factors that led to this outcome. The Democrats’ failure to promptly address the real economic concerns of working-class Americans has paved the way for Trump’s populist rhetoric to once again resonate with voters.

The Disconnect Between Wall Street and Main Street

Despite the rosy picture painted by macroeconomic indicators – a booming stock market, low unemployment, and steady GDP growth – the reality for average Americans has been starkly different. Under the Biden-Harris administration, we witnessed a shocking 20% increase in consumer prices, the biggest slump in living standards since the 1930s[1]. While the rich got richer, most Americans struggled to keep up with inflation.

The disconnect between official economic data and workers’ lived experiences is staggering. According to a recent poll, 62% of respondents rated the economy as “not so good” or “poor”[2]. This “vibecession” – where public sentiment doesn’t match official economic data – has been a critical factor in the Democrats’ downfall.

The Failure of Bidenomics and Harris’s Neoliberal Approach

Perhaps most damning is the decline in real wages for union workers under Biden. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index, we see that inflation-adjusted wages and salaries for union workers decreased during Biden’s term while increasing under Trump. No wonder 56% of Americans thought the country was in a recession, with 72% believing inflation was still rising.

Going back to Bill Clinton the Democrats’ embrace of austerity policies has deeply betrayed their working-class base. They’ve continued catering to Wall Street and big business instead of pushing for transformative economic policies that benefit the majority. Harris’s refusal to support a single-payer healthcare system, her backtracking on fracking, and the maintenance of Trump-era tax cuts for the wealthy all demonstrate the party’s shift away from progressive economic policies.

The Shift of Traditional Democratic Voters

One voter’s quote summarizes why sufficient numbers switched from Democrat to Republican: “I’ve been a Democrat my whole life, and I haven’t seen any benefits. Democrats have been sending funds to wars and resources to migrants rather than to Americans who are struggling. I trust Trump to put us first.”[2] This sentiment reflects a broader trend of disillusionment among traditionally Democratic voters, particularly regarding economic issues and the perception that the party wasn’t prioritizing struggling Americans.

The Immigration Paradox

Ironically, much of the US outperformance in economic growth results from a sharp increase in net immigration, twice as fast as in the Eurozone and three times as fast as in Japan. Yet, the Harris campaign failed to capitalize on this economic benefit, instead caving to anti-immigrant sentiment and supporting the continuation of border wall construction, which contradicted the economic benefits of immigration and alienated potential supporters.

The Looming Debt Crisis

Both candidates have ignored the elephant in the room: the ballooning public debt. Currently estimated at $35 trillion, or around 100% of GDP, the debt load is set to soar higher – potentially reaching $50 trillion within the next 10 years. This rising debt will inevitably lead to higher taxes and cuts in government spending, regardless of who is in power, posing a significant economic challenge for the future.

The Need for Socialist Policies is Urgent

Join a socialist organization. I prefer a mass multi-tendency organization like the Democratic Socialists of America, but if you need something more focused, go for it. Learn to be active in your organization and promote outward-facing, mass work.

To rebuild and move forward, we must embrace truly socialist policies that unite the working class:

• Implement a wealth tax on the ultra-rich to fund social programs and infrastructure investments.
• Establish a single-payer healthcare system to eliminate medical debt and ensure universal coverage.
• Enact a Green New Deal that creates millions of good-paying union jobs while addressing climate change.
• Raise the minimum wage to a living wage and strengthen workers’ rights to organize.
• Invest in affordable housing and public transportation to improve the quality of life for all.

The Road Ahead

While the Democratic Party has failed us, we must strategically consider whether it can still be a vehicle for progressive change. Our immediate focus should be building grassroots solid movements and labor organizations that can exert pressure on political institutions from the outside. Of course, we should use the Democratic line where it is strategically convenient and pursue reform that transfers power from the owning classes to the working classes. 

We must also concentrate our defenses against the coming onslaught of right-wing policies. Concentrating our defenses means making choices about where we can protect voting rights, defend reproductive freedom, and safeguard the rights of marginalized communities. We must recognize that unions will likely face a much more hostile environment under a Trump administration, forcing labor into a defensive position. We will need to find a strategy to resume the offensive. 

As we move forward, we must remember that the underlying forces of capitalist production, investment, and profit are much more powerful than any particular policy adopted and implemented by a government. However, this doesn’t mean we should give up on political action. Instead, we must work tirelessly to build a movement that can challenge the foundations of a system that continues to fail most Americans.

The road ahead is challenging, but we must channel our anger and sadness into organizing and action. Only by uniting the working class around a truly progressive economic agenda can we hope to reverse the tide of right-wing populism and build a more just and equitable society for all.

---

Sources: 

Kamala Harris Is Not Doing Well With Union Voters

How Bad Would a Trump Presidency Be for Labor? 

The US presidential election: part one – the economy – Michael Roberts Blog

The US election part two: Trump v Harris:  

NOTE: This review contains spoilers

In his latest film, Anora, director Sean Baker has broken through from indie credibility to mainstream success with a frenetic look at the layer of American workers that toil amongst the ultra-rich, doing their dirty work and cleaning up their messes. While the camera follows the arc of the title character, it lingers on the maids, hotel concierges, exotic dancers, and hired goons who bear witness to the realities of 21^st-century income inequality. Through the protagonist (and audience proxy), exotic dancer Anora, we wrestle with the hope we cannot seem to give up that maybe, if we play our cards right, we can gain access to the world of luxury and ease inhabited by people no better than us. 

As soon as we meet Anora (Mikey Madison), it becomes clear that she is an able and confident worker. Her job involves both physical and emotional labor that she navigates easily. Baker aims a nonjudgmental lens at the club where Anora works; the lighting is warm and sensual and the shots that linger on the dancers are sexy but not prurient or seedy. Anora’s club is a classy establishment that serves high-value clients, and Anora is assigned to Ivan (Mark Eydelshteyn), the son of a Russian oligarch. What follows –flirting and touching, listening and laughing, deep stares – could look, from a distance, like two people falling in love; but those of us who have worked in the service industry know that performance is what we are paid for. 

When Ivan invites her to spend a week with him, it is a professional achievement more than a romantic one for Anora. She maintains her power and sets boundaries even as she enjoys the work and the perks, which include lavish parties and designer drugs. She dances for Ivan and holds him while he plays video games because her job is to fulfill the full range of his desires for companionship. They fly to Las Vegas and visit parts of it only seen by the ultra-rich, and when Ivan ‘jokingly’ screams at a hotel concierge, Anora laughs along with him — as does the concierge, because they both serve at his pleasure. 

When Ivan asks her to marry him, it is again proof of her skill at the job of companionship. The transactional nature of the proposal couldn’t be more clearly spelled out (she gets a ring, he gets a green card), yet we are all so wrapped up in the performance of romance and the ecstasy of a decadent lifestyle that it kind of feels like love. 

Then, as they always do, the drugs wear off, and reality sets in.

In the back half of the film, we meet a new set of characters and shift back into the world of people who must make a living doing what someone tells them to do. When word starts getting around that Ivan has married a ‘prostitute’, the fragile plans that he and Anora made during their honeymoon period immediately disintegrates. Men hired by Ivan’s family to keep an eye on him come knocking, and Ivan bolts, leaving her to (impressively) resist them until it becomes clear that she must ally with them to try to track him down. When they physically assault and restrain her, it is with visible reluctance and shame. These hired strongmen, especially the one who seems to be the sole caregiver to his grandmother, are driven by the paychecks they rely on, but also by the knowledge that their bosses are so powerful that disobedience could be punished with the destruction of their professional and personal lives. 

This looming power haunts the whole sad crew as they embark on an involuntary tour of Ivan’s favorite hangouts, wreaking havoc through their pursuit. The next hour of the film unfolds with a manic but humorous energy comparable to the Safdie Brothers film Good Time. Baker’s pacing pulls us from location to location with the driving force of economic anxiety, but skillfully inserts moments of humor and humanity. 

While the goons are fully aware from the outset that they are in a race for their lives, it only dawns on Anora slowly, piece by piece, as she comes to realize that any expectations she had of becoming part of Ivan’s family was a complete fantasy. After dozens of ignored calls and the ransacking of a candy shop, she realizes that Ivan is not a person she can rely on in even the most basic sense. Following a fight at the club where she met him, it becomes clear that he is a pathetic, dependent child completely unable to escape the authority of his parents. When Ivan’s mother (Darya Ekamasova) tells Anora that if she does not give him a divorce, they will destroy her life and the life of everyone she knows, she is just putting words to the feelings we have felt for the whole film. In a system where money buys power, the ultra-rich can make us all do whatever they want.

On her last night in the mansion she allowed herself to believe was hers, Anora attempts to restore some sense of her own power by belittling Igor (Yura Borisov), the henchman who has never stopped trying to show her his humanity. Anora is telling the truth when she calls him a thug and a kidnapper, but even as she says it, she knows that he, too, was just doing his job. They recognize each other as workers. 

The next day, Igor drops her off, carrying her bags to the door in a way that would never even occur to Ivan. When he gives her back her engagement ring — in a much less transactional way than when she first receives it — her instinct is to make good on his investment with her body. She responds with a sexual advance, because for her, the line between transactional sex and genuine attraction is even more blurred than it is for most women. In a moment when rejection would hurt her but enthusiasm would compromise her, Igor just lets things happen. His passivity is a sign of his care and a continuation of his efforts to support her that has been built up over the course of the film. 

In that moment, Anora struggles against her attraction to him. It is a response to what he has done to her, but also to the prospect of attaching herself to who she sees as a man of low status, as opposed to the elite husband she just lost. Their final encounter triggers an emotional release, and she breaks down when her need to be vulnerable momentarily overcomes her instinct to stay strong. This isn’t love any more than her relationship with Ivan was, but it is at least something real.

Anora is a movie with a sad ending, but it’s not a tragedy. It’s a movie about failing to achieve the American dream, but it’s not the story of a woman defeated. It’s about realizing that who gets to have money and who doesn’t is based not on merit or skill, but rather on luck and ruthlessness. Anora gets a taste of this unreal world, where power and pleasure are limitless. For an interloper like her, though, it has hard limits; it’s a sugar rush followed immediately by a crash. Because she is 25, this experience, though traumatizing, will fade; it isn’t the end for her, but a painful lesson that we all learn at some point.

The majority of American workers hold out hope that something will happen to ensure they won’t have to work anymore. This can be seen in the rise of sports betting, crypto prospecting, and voting for a presidential candidate who promises to magically make groceries cheaper. Anyone can see that those who work the hardest in our society tend to get paid the least, while a small minority at the top have nothing but time and endless resources; so why would anyone want to work hard? Unfortunately, none of us will be pulled out of a life of toil by a generous billionaire because the generous billionaire is a myth. For most of us, no amount of savvy speculation or cozying up to rich boys will ever get us into that stratospheric level of wealth. 

Instead, we have to work — not only at the wage jobs that keep food on the table, but at building working-class organizations to contest the power of the billionaire class. It sucks. It is nothing but the promise of hard work forever. But building something with our fellow workers is the only way out of this mess, and there is the potential to find dignity in the work we do, despite the scorn for hard work inculcated by capitalist culture. Sean Baker’s direction and editing allow us, the audience, to see the work of Anora and her coworkers for what it is: the provision of a service by professionals. By adopting this perspective, not only nonjudgmental but celebratory, on the work of exotic dancers, Baker opens the door for us to rediscover the dignity in the physical and emotional labor we all do.

The post (Sex) Work Won’t Love You Back: A Review of Sean Baker’s Anora appeared first on Midwest Socialist.