People’s Response to APEC: Breakdown or Breakthrough?

by Tricontinental Asia / December 4th, 2025

The Doomsday Clock advances 10 seconds closer to midnight. Global temperatures rise beyond 1.5°C. Forests burn. Hurricanes intensify. Meanwhile, countries produce bombs and bullets, the New Cold War inches us closer to nuclear annihilation, and US President Donald Trump extorts the world.

The response of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is to draw from the same tired capitalist playbook that created today’s polycrisis. Thus, APEC perpetuates a global order that makes democracy a farce and concentrates production in the hands of corporations. For most of us, to live our lives, we become insensate to these realities. The International People’s Response to APEC 2025 and Trump (People’s Response) was created because we refuse to watch the world being destroyed from the sidelines. While we denounce Trump’s tariff extortion, we also refuse to settle for APEC’s nostalgic yearning for a pre-Trump globalised world that never was.

Lee Ungno (South Korea), People, 1985.

APEC’s structure and origins expose its corporate-centric economic cooperation. All 20 official meetings throughout the year, from food sovereignty to AI regulation, are carried out with corporations behind closed doors. Moreover, the only non-governmental body with an official meeting with APEC leaders is the APEC Business Advisory Council. Its ubiquitous interventions are evident in its letters to APEC’s thematic and working groups. This structure reflects APEC’s original intent and function of serving as a forum for business to access governments. Its corporate-centric economic cooperation traces back to 1966, with a Japanese economist’s proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). While rejected, this FTAAP remains APEC’s guiding vision. In fact, the progenitor to today’s global value chains emerged within this context: the Toyota Manufacturing System’s regional value chain across Southeast Asia stood in contrast to the Ford-inspired vertically integrated mass production that was then prevalent in the United States.

To represent the voices of people from the region and the world, the International Strategy Center, together with the International Peoples’ Assembly (IPA) and other progressive groups, hosted a series of People’s Response from 29 October to 1 November. International delegates were invited to join the struggle and exchange experiences.

Yoan Choe (South Korea), Stand Up With Your Fist Clenched, n.d.

On 29 October, we harnessed Korean public discontent and outrage to protest Trump’s visit to Gyeongju. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were particularly egregious to South Korea as the latter’s zero tariffs were achieved after conceding to the US’ toxic provisions (i.e., investor state dispute settlement systems) in the US-ROK Free Trade Agreement. Today, in exchange for 15% tariffs, the Lee Jae-myung administration has to hand over $350 billion of Korea’s money (over 80% of its dollar reserves) to the Trump administration. As Vijay Prashad stated in the Gyeongju People’s Summit, ‘Trump just put his hand in your pocket and took your money’. Infuriatingly, excepting the few that stood up to Trump, this is an all-too-common scene around the world: presidents smiling and thanking Trump as they get robbed. And while these investments might yield profits for Korean companies, they do nothing for jobs and welfare for Korea while abetting in the US’s reckless scramble to maintain its dominance. After all, $150 billion will ‘Make American Shipbuilding Great Again’, thus expanding US naval capacity. The rest of the $200 billion will be used for investments (with Trump having final say) on extracting fossil fuels and further embedding South Korea in the US’s semiconductor industry. Trump’s tariff extortion portends US decline and retrenchment. Yet, rather than a rebalancing in foreign relations, South Korea is becoming more structurally dependent on the United States.

On 30 October, the People’s Response hosted a conference on the theme ‘An Economy For All’, exploring capitalist globalisation, the shifting global order, and alternatives to APEC. In the first panel (‘Globalization, Trump’s Tariff War, and APEC’), Walden Bello, co-chair of the board of Focus on the Global South, spoke about how capitalist globalisation has enriched multinational corporations from the Global North while destabilising countries in the Global South and increasing global inequality. Bello called for a deglobalisation based on people’s needs, development, plurality, and social control. Dr. Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, chairman of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, proposed an ASEAN-centred regional economy for Malaysia, based on higher wages, corporate taxes, and import substitution. Solong Senohe, general secretary of Lesotho’s United Textile Employees Union, spoke on how Trump’s tariffs wrecked the textile industry, leaving countless unemployed (80% of them being young women). Kim Deok-su, general secretary of the Korean Peasants League of Gangwon Province, spoke about how Korean peasants were being sacrificed for export-oriented production and called for food sovereignty. Kim Seong-hyeok, director of the Korean Confederation of Trade Union’s Korea Labor and Society Institute, criticised Trump’s ‘America First’ policy while rejecting APEC’s capital-centred globalisation – he echoed calls for democratic and people-centred alternatives. Kim Jong-min, co-president of Together Seoul, called out Trump’s predatory neoliberalism while seeing the current moment as an opportunity to build international solidarity against Trump and for peace, sustainability, and development.

Jiha Moon (South Korea), The Letter Shin 2, 2011.

In the second panel (‘Multipolarity, the New Cold War, and Neo-Fascism’), Vijay Prashad, executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, presented on the growing confidence and assertiveness of the Global South (through processes such as BRICS+) which was provoked by the Global North’s inability to solve the world’s problems following the 2008 Financial crisis. Tings Chak, an organiser of the Shanghai-based Global South Academic Forum and co-editor of the international edition of the journal Wenhua Zongheng, explored China’s socialist path and its vision of peaceful co-existence based on national sovereignty. Corazon Fabros, co-president of the International Peace Bureau, proposed the idea of ‘common security’ as the ‘path to a peaceful multipolar world’, including in the South China Sea. Cathi Choi, executive director of Women Cross DMZ, called for developing a ‘people-centred economy’ and a ‘regional demilitarisation dialogue’ based on diplomacy. Dyung YaPing, of the Urgent Action by South Korean Civil Society in Solidarity with Palestine, called on Korean labour unions to actively participate in the solidarity struggle to end the genocide in Palestine. Myeong-Suk of Human Rights Network BARAM called for greater international solidarity (regardless of one’s positions on China) amidst the openings created by the seismic shifts to a multipolar world. Finally, Ahn Kim, Jeong-ae, president of Women Making Peace, presented on the specific impact of war on women and called for a feminist approach towards peace based on ‘care, life, peace, and co-existence’.

In the third panel (‘Alternatives, Social Movements, and Progressive Parties’), Stephanie Weatherbee, coordinator of the IPA, explored the potential and limitations of multipolarity given its heterogeneity and called for building organisations that can lead ‘sustained struggle’ towards ‘liberation and constructing a new world’. Peter Mertens, Secretary General of the Workers’ Party of Belgium shared the importance of a principled, flexible party rooted in the working class and explicitly committed to overcoming capitalism. Raphael Kaplinsky, professor at the University of Sussex, spoke on the end of deep globalisation and the need to add directionality towards sustainability and equality to the new emerging information technology and techno-economic paradigm. Layan Fuleihan, education director at the People’s Forum, emphasised the need to build social alternatives to Trump and the importance of political education and culture. Moon Jeong-eun, vice-chair of the Justice Party, Lee Sang-hyun, co-president of the Green Party, and Jang Hye-Kyoung, policy committee chair of the Labor Party, all spoke on the need for rebuilding left political parties through unity within Korean and internationally by constructing a vision of expanding public goods, rights, and sustainability. Miryu, chair of the organising committee for System Change Movement and Hwang Jeong-eun, general secretary of the International Strategy Center called for movements to move beyond isolation and towards solidarity.

Lee Kun-Yong, Logic of Hand, 1975/2018.

On 1 November, we gathered for the People’s Summit in Gyeongju which ran parallel to the last day of the APEC Leaders Summit. Hundreds of people gathered at the People’s Summit to read and sign on to the Gyeongju People’s Declaration. Soon after, the 2025 APEC Leaders’ Gyeongju Declaration was adopted, which sure enough repeated the same mantra around corporate led global value chains followed by a litany of corporate centred recommendations. While the weekend of solidarity and struggle against APEC ended with a rally and march through the streets of Gyeongju, our struggle continues. We call on the world to lift up banners and pickets on 20 January 2026, the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, to fight for a world of peace and dignity that we need and deserve.

Written by Dae-Han Song, a part of the International Strategy Center and the No Cold War collective. He is an associate at the Korea Policy Institute.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research seeks to build a bridge between academic production and political and social movements to promote critical critical thinking and stimulate debates. Read other articles by Tricontinental Asia.

The Great Revolutionary Divide

by J.S. O’Keefe / December 4th, 2025

Europe, mid-1800s: Two men stood at the center of a storm that would shape socialism’s future.

Karl Marx, a German-born philosopher, believed in seizing the state (central government) and wielding its machinery to crush the ruling class. To him, power was a tool, not a curse.

Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian anarchist strategist, saw it differently. According to him, every possible state was a prison. Even one run by the workers’ representatives would quickly become a cage. Bakunin dreamed of freedom built from the ground up: local councils, voluntary federations, no hierarchy.

They met in the First International, and tension simmered immediately. Marx suspected secret plotting; Bakunin saw creeping authoritarianism. Arguments heated up, and words became accusations.

At the Hague Congress of 1872, the storm broke. Marx expelled Bakunin. Bakunin left, defiant, warning of new tyranny.

What follows is history: Marxists built parties and seized state power. Anarchists organized strikes, formed collectives, refused all authority. Both still claim the working class. Both dream of freedom, but not the same kind. Different paths entirely.

The clash has become more than ideology. It’s about the allure and danger of power, whether freedom can be handed down or must be built, fiercely and locally, from below. Even today, their shadow lingers: revolution is never just ideas. It’s people, personalities, and choices made when the future hangs in the balance.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

J.S. O’Keefe’s short stories, essays and poems have been published in Everyday Fiction, WENSUM, Roi Faineant, 101 Words, Spillwords, AntipodeanSF, 50WS, Friday Flash Fiction, etc. Read other articles by J.S., or visit J.S.'s website.

The Dark Triad Can’t Kill Karl

by Nayvin Gordon / December 4th, 2025

“The most violent, mean, and malignant passions of the human breast…” are the emotions that protectors and defenders of capitalism focus on those who seek to end the profit system and replace it with a more egalitarian system. This is what Karl Marx wrote in his introduction to the first edition of Capital in 1867.

Most of written history is the history of the few dominating and exploiting the many. Marx, while searching for a more just society, clearly pointed out that humans are emotional animals, some of whom will do anything to maintain their power, wealth, and dominance.  Unfortunately, he did not develop this thought, but concentrated on the economic laws of modern society.

The most violent, mean, and malignant are the punishers and enforcers of the system of private ownership of the means of production. These are emotions attached to selfish individualistic interests, not the interests of the common good, and social needs.

Marx approximates the description of the Dark Triad, a cluster of personality disorders: narcissism, psychopathology, and Machiavellian behavior.  This includes the following personality traits: Self-centered, manipulative, lack of empathy, dominating, self-superiority, disregard for the rights of others and lack of remorse.

These traits describe tyrants, dictators, kings, and dominators throughout recorded history.  Social hierarchy, “open the door for a plethora of injustices and cruelties that come with warfare, slavery, and other types of exploitation by unchecked power wielders” (The Human Potential for Peace, Douglas P. Fry, 2006)

Marx did not discuss the need to prevent the rise of the Dark Triad in the struggle to free society from exploitation.  This is a neglected, important reason for the failure to achieve and maintain an egalitarian society.  Egalitarian social/political movements that do not combat the danger of top-down decision-making social hierarchy both within political organizations and society at large are always open to subversion by those of the Dark Triad.

Even though Marx documented that hunter-gather societies lived in more communal societies, motivated by altruism and collectivity, he made no mention of how these principles were maintained.   Recent anthropologists have answered this question.

Anthropologist Christopher Boehm studied this issue and concluded the following: the ideology of “reverse hierarchy” is the core principle that maintains equality of all members.  Boehm documented that in egalitarian societies members exert “intentional behavior that decisively suppressed hierarchical relations among adults as political actors.”

“Differences between individuals are only permitted…, insofar as they work for the common good.”  Such equality can only persist “as long as followers remain vigilantly egalitarian because they understand the nature of domination,”; the “innate tendencies of individuals to dominate their peers.”

“If an egalitarian ethos is present, abusive leadership is by definition, deviant,”  “It is a war of the great majority who are willing to settle for equality against the occasional dominator who is not… Upstarts who think they can get away with it.”(Boehm,  Christopher,  “Egalitarian  Behavior  and  Reverse Dominance  Hierarchy”,  Current  Anthropology  ,  Vol.   34, No.3, June 1993)

Maintaining equality requires eternal vigilance to ensure that all political decisions remain in the hands of the great majority, the rank and file. Recorded history repeatedly demonstrates that when the Dark Triad and their supporters are allowed to rise, the development of social hierarchy and top-down decision-making is inevitable, resulting in domination, oppression, and exploitation.  For those seeking a more egalitarian world, incorporating this understanding into their core principles is essential.

A multitude of lights extinguish the darkness.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Dr. Nayvin Gordon is a Family Physician in California who has written many articles on Health and Politics. He can be reached at gordonnayvin@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Nayvin.

Why CBC Needs a Co-op Revolution

By Ludovic Viger

December 3, 2025

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

“CBC Centre” by fw_gadget, CC BY-SA 2.0

Let’s be honest: CBC’s current model is a relic. Seventy percent government-funded, it’s a political football—kicked between Liberal lifelines and Conservative defunding threats. The 2025 budget debates, projected from the national anxiety over global trade and tariff threats, show the perennial problem: funding discussions are about Ottawa’s political priorities, not the needs of the network or the public. Cuts persist, and trust erodes.

Why? Because forcing a one-size-fits-all narrative—whether it’s the government’s spin or the opposition’s axe—alienates the very people it serves. Activism might scream “defund now!” or “fund forever!” but it’s a shouting match that stalls progress. As I’ve long argued, shoving ideology down throats breeds resistance, not solutions.

Contrast that with advocacy’s power. It’s passionate but open, building bridges through dialogue and adaptation. Cooperatives embody this—think worker-owned cafes weathering trade wars or housing co-ops rebuilding after wildfires. CBC could be the same: a multi-stakeholder co-op where journalists, regional producers, and users co-own the mission. No guilt trips, no ultimatums—just a shared stake in Canada’s story.

The stubborn Canada Post strike, which has been dragging into its third week as of October, hints at the hunger for this: workers want ownership and security, not just wage handouts. Why not CBC too?

The co-op model fits like a glove. The International Cooperative Alliance’s principles—democratic member control, member education, concern for community—mirror what CBC could be: a network owned by those who create and consume it.

• Tariffs threatening ad revenue? A co-op diversifies with user subs.
• Job cuts looming? Worker-owners vote to reinvest profits.
• Regional voices fading? Producers from Halifax to Whitehorse get equity stakes.

It’s not about dismantling CBC—it’s about retooling it for resilience, relevance, and trust. Let’s see how this might look by 2030.

A Day in the Life of CBC Coop: The 2030 Vision

Fast-forward to that snowy 2030 morning. The Commons buzzes with purpose. Here’s how CBC Coop works, blending three stakeholder pillars into a cohesive whole:

Workers as Storytellers (40% Voting Power)

Journalists, producers, and tech crews—anyone on payroll—earn equity shares vesting over three years. No more top-down edicts from faceless execs. Editorial boards rotate annually, elected by guild votes. In Regina, the ag team scraps a fluffy urban sprawl piece because it ignores Prairie water wars—a decision rooted in local expertise, not Ottawa’s agenda.

Pay? Transparent tiers averaging $85K, up 20% from 2025 lows, with profit pools split by output and mentorship. It’s Defector Media’s scrappy success—worker-driven, ad-light, thriving on subs—scaled nationally. When the 2028 recession hit, there were no mass layoffs; co-ops weather downturns 30% better (per ILO stats), thanks to shared risk. They simply voted to reduce pay-outs and maintain jobs.

Producers/Regional Hubs as Equals (30% Power)

Coast-to-coast “nodes” own their beats. Vancouver beams Pacific salmon scoops, Iqaluit covers Inuit land claims, Toronto dives into urban pulse—all syndicated via a central HQ in Ottawa that handles shared costs (tech, archives) like a federated co-op.

It’s producer co-op vibes: Each hub elects a rep to the assembly, pooling resources à la Desjardins credit unions. Halifax leads on Atlantic fisheries, splitting 70/30 revenue with Central. No more “fly-in, file-out” hacks; locals own the narrative, cutting carbon footprints and boosting trust—viewer retention leaps 35%. When tariffs tanked Maritimes exports in ’26, Halifax’s crew pivoted to trade impact documentaries, winning Geminis and policy nods.

Users/Communities as Guardians (30% Power)

You, the listener, hold the reins. Subscribe for $10/month—ad-free access, early podcasts, voting rights on big calls like ad policies or emergency coverage (e.g., wildfire alerts during BC’s ’28 blazes). Community reps from co-ops—farmers, First Nations, SMBs—join via lotteries, ensuring no echo chamber.

Funding blends 60% subscriptions (2 million members by 2029), 25% ethical sponsors (green energy co-ops, not Big Oil), and 15% from a statutory heritage grant, secured post-2027 as a public good, not a political pawn. It’s taz-style reader ownership: When users voted emergency funds for trade docs in ’26, it sparked a national conversation—and revenue.

The Payoff

By 2030, CBC Coop’s $125 million deficit? History. Revenues climb 25% via niche pods (“Tariff Talks” with Carney alums) and co-branded events (live debates at food co-ops). Job security? Solid—600+ rehired since ’27. Independence? Ironclad—critics can’t slap “state media” labels when users and workers own the mic. Culturally, it’s a revelation: Aisha’s salmon series morphs into a food sovereignty push, linking Haida kelp to Nunavut caribou.

The guiding principle is no longer “Ottawa knows best”; it’s “We all know best.”

From Fantasy to Reality: The Advocacy Path

This isn’t sci-fi—it’s achievable by December 2025 if we lean into advocacy, not activism.

Activism might demand “defund CBC!” or “bail it out!”—polarizing moves that fracture trust, a pattern we see in stalled labour talks like the recent Canada Post strike. Advocacy, though? It builds consensus.

Imagine a cross-party task force—sparked by your op-eds—drafting the Co-op Conversion Act by spring 2026. Picture CMC (Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada) piloting with Radio-Canada’s French nodes, testing worker-user governance. Envision a crowdfunded seed loan bridging the capital gap, with Vancity credit union chipping in as the anchor investor.

The hurdles? Early governance snags and securing startup cash. But that’s co-op maturity: Listen, adapt, thrive. Data backs this—Desjardins grew assets 10% in 2024 amid downturns, proving co-ops’ edge. CBC Coop could mirror that, dodging tariff-hit ad losses and AI-driven freelance cuts. It’s not about burning bridges; it’s about building them—inviting journalists, producers, and you, the viewer, to co-own the future.

Why This Matters for Canada

CBC isn’t just a broadcaster—it’s a cultural heartbeat. Yet, as tariffs loom (with the threat of a Trump-era 25% hit still hanging over the USMCA review) and regional divides widen, it’s at risk of becoming a relic.

A co-op model counters that:

• It empowers workers with equity, not layoffs.
• It gives regional hubs a voice, not neglect.
• It provides communities with choice, not mandates.

It’s a laboratory for social change, proving passion doesn’t need polarization—advocacy does the heavy lifting.

Look at the Canada Post strike: Workers crave ownership, not ultimatums. CBC’s journalists echo that—why not give them stakes? Look at Nova Scotia’s wildfires: Co-op housing rebuilt faster with member funds; a co-op CBC could prioritize such stories. This is bigger than media. It’s about redefining how Canada tells its story—democratically, collaboratively, sustainably.

Conclusion: Own the Mic, Shape the Future

As 2025 winds down, the air’s thick with uncertainty—tariffs, strikes, budget battles. CBC stands at a crossroads: fade as a government pawn or rise as a co-op champion. Activism’s ideological push might grab headlines, but it fractures the community it claims to serve. Advocacy, with its dialogue and adaptability, builds the trust needed for progress.

Imagine CBC Coop by next December: A network where you vote on coverage, journalists own their desks, and regions lead the charge—all without a taxpayer bailout. It’s not a fantasy—it’s a choice.

So, I ask you: Will you push an agenda, or build a story together?Join a media co-op pilot—start with NB Media’s indie model, vote in their assemblies. Rally your MP for the Co-op Conversion Act. Drop your thoughts below: Worker-only, or full multi-stake? Let’s script this future, because Canada’s story deserves to be ours.

Ludovic Viger

Ludovic Viger is an Ottawa-based author and entrepreneur. His book, The Great Canadian Reset: How Co-Ops Can Save Canada’s Economy, explores cooperative models as pathways to economic democracy, drawing from global examples and Canadian contexts to propose resilient alternatives to corporate media dominance.

From Tenant Power to Social Housing: Pathways to a Just Housing System

By Fernando X. Abarca Abarca

December 4, 2025

Source: Non Profit Quarterly

Image Credit: “Migrant Imaginary” by Layqa Nuna Yawar, layqa.info

I have lived all my life in Los Angeles, but I have never seen anything like the level of destruction we experienced this past January due to the fires that ripped through our neighborhoods. In real time, I saw the devastating impact of climate change. At the same time, landlords across the city were spiking rents because the wellbeing of their tenants was last on their list of considerations.

Unfortunately, while moments of crisis make visible so many amazing acts of solidarity, generosity, and support from people looking to help those in need, they also present us with the ugliest side of greed and profit-seeking under our capitalist system.

It’s the need to respond to this greed that’s leading more and more tenants to join tenant unions and demand that public officials pass legislation that protects against price gouging and price fixing. Rent control is one key policy that can protect tenants, but ultimately we need solutions that put land and housing into social ownership. And the success of these efforts starts with all of us, collectively, as tens of millions of people who make up our renter nation fight for housing as a human right.

A Pattern of Vulture Capitalism

Grotesque approaches from private equity companies and investors in times of profound tragedy and chaos did not appear out of nowhere in 2025. We have seen this movie before. After the foreclosure crisis–induced Great Recession, the United States experienced one of the biggest-ever wealth transfers from families to Wall Street. We saw it yet again during the COVID-19 pandemic as families struggled to keep up with rents and mortgages in the face of widespread job losses.

Banking on disasters as opportunities to make profits at the expense of the planet and marginalized communities has become the norm in a pattern of vulture capitalism. Increasingly, a small number of large corporations are using their financial capital to acquire our cities’ remaining affordable housing stock.

The constant land grabs consequently give these large corporations expanded control. To date, traditional private market solutions have not relieved the problem. This is not by accident. It is by design.

As long as we continue to treat housing as yet another Wall Street lever for profit generation, those with financial power over the market will continue to make massive windfalls through the current system, and we will continue to be unable to solve this housing question.

The Roots of US Tenant Organizing

In 1872, Friedrich Engels published his pamphlet, The Housing Question, writing that “the housing shortage is no accident; it is a necessary institution, and it can be abolished together with all its effects on health, etc., only if the whole social order from which it springs is fundamentally refashioned.”

The economic concept of supply and demand encourages us to believe that the only way out of the housing crisis is to build more housing. But after 150 years of building housing, the question Engels wrote about in 1872 troubles us still. It turns out that while building new affordable and accessible housing is necessary, it is insufficient to solve our housing crisis.

To help those who are most marginalized, we must also focus our attention on preserving the remaining affordable housing stock we have.

Tenant fights and organizing efforts have occurred in the United States since the turn of the 20th century. New York perhaps best encapsulates the success of tenant organizing efforts during that period, with a series of successful rent strikes and eviction blockades throughout the state, leading to policies that improved the living conditions of low-income tenants living in slum dwellings. One key policy win was the passage of rent control in 1920.

During World War II, rent control became national policy (and remained in effect until 1947), but New York has been one of only a handful of states that have maintained the policy since then. Two other states—California and Oregon—have passed statewide rent control guidelines. There are also several municipalities that have similar policies in place.

The Pandemic Lights a Fire

During the COVID-19 pandemic, tenant organizing expanded rapidly, as millions of people mobilized when faced with the threat of eviction. Tenants galvanized to advocate for rent cancellation and eviction moratoriums to maintain their housing during the pandemic, and organized for stronger renter protections for the long haul.

Organized tenant efforts became part of the national conversation. For example, Moms for Housing in Oakland, CA, drew attention to and challenged the notion of a housing shortage when they occupied vacant units owned by a real estate investment firm. Due to their action, they were able to move in, and the units were ultimately placed in a community land trust. More recently, in 2024, local tenant unions joined forces in forming the national Tenant Union Federation.

Rent control remains a central tactic to protect tenants from landlords who spike rent without remorse or concern for tenants’ health and wellbeing. Rent control is also a key mechanism that tenant unions and organized groups can use to fend off speculation in their neighborhoods.

Rent control fights are inherently fights against corporate control. In concrete terms, it is a government program that limits the amount of money a landlord can demand for leasing a home. Rent control laws are usually enacted by municipalities, and the details vary widely, but all are intended to keep housing affordable.

As demonstrated in the Swing State Housing Poll, conducted by Right to the City Action and the Center for Popular Democracy, rent control is wildly popular. According to the US Census, nearly half of all renters (21 million families) are housing cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30 percent of their income on housing; over half of those renters (12.1 million families) are severely cost-burdened (paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent), according to a 2025 Harvard study. Many families facing such constraints are put in the impossible position of making life-or-death decisions each month to either pay rent, feed themselves, or cover their medication.

Until policies like rent control are implemented across the United States, housing will remain widely unaffordable. The fight for rent control is worthwhile, not only because it ensures that rents are capped to maintain affordability, but also because it weakens large investment firms’ interest in distressed housing assets. If we can cap the rents of our units, we can limit the profits of these companies, and that is an important step to enable advocates to advance our society toward a more just system where housing is treated as a human right.

A housing supply strategy that does not rely on “the market” is required to at least supplement private housing.

A Social Housing Vision

Controlling rent is only a first step. Many conventional economists say that rent control discourages private landlords from building. The data are less clear on this point than many landlord advocates claim. What is clear is that both in cities that have rent control policies in place and those that do not is that the cost of housing is far too high for far too many US families. The market system of housing supply is not working, period. This means a housing supply strategy that does not rely on “the market” is required to at least supplement private housing.

Social housing is a public option for housing that has three key qualities: It is permanently affordable, protected from the private market, and under democratic community control of the residents who live there. There are various models of social housing such as public housing, community land trusts, and housing cooperatives. In all forms, public backing is critical in order to bring social housing to scale.

In Los Angeles, tenants have been at the forefront of some of the most innovative social housing initiatives in the country. In 2022, voters in Los Angeles approved the ballot initiative known as Measure ULA (United to House LA), which has already collected $375 million through a “mansion tax.” This imposes a 4 percent tax on property sales over $5.1 million and a 5.5 percent tax on sales over $10.3 million, with the goal of investing a substantial portion of that money into affordable and social housing solutions.

In February 2025, in Seattle, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1A, which authorizes a 5 percent tax on employee compensation over $1 million per year to fund social housing citywide and is expected to generate about $53 million annually.

Policy wins such as those in Los Angeles and Seattle will make it possible for resident-owned housing cooperatives and homes stewarded by community land trusts (CLT) to become a much larger percentage of overall available housing. In other words, public funding can allow social housing to be built to scale.

In Los Angeles, ULA funds can be used both to support housing preservation, such as tenant acquisitions for distressed properties at risk of being flipped, as well as build new housing for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents—like farm workers, day laborers, and restaurant workers—and others, including teachers and nurses.

While most cities have yet to achieve policy gains like these, ground-up tenant organizing efforts elsewhere provide guidance and inspiration for what is possible. A well-known example is the Sky Without Limits Cooperative in Minneapolis, MN.

After close to a decade of organizing and court dates, the residents of the five buildings that make up Sky Without Limits were finally able to remove their landlord and buy the building, allowing residents to collectively manage and make decisions about their own homes.

For years, these tenants (who would eventually become housing co-op co-owners) in Minneapolis fought to have their slumlord make repairs to their almost uninhabitable units. With support from their sister organization, United Renters for Justice/Inquilinxs Unidxs, residents of the five buildings created bylaws and agreements for their housing cooperative. The city’s land bank, supported by the nonprofit Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Twin Cities, raised the capital, and the tenants are currently in the process of raising $2 million to take direct ownership and transition the buildings to community housing co-op control.

Projects like Sky Without Limits give us a glimpse into what it will take to establish governing structures and decision-making practices where residents are involved, leading the strategies and developing the best infrastructures for them. Democratic governance is at the center of these solidarity economy models. Within this alternative economic system, we can tap into our biggest advantage: ourselves, the people that make up the renter nation within the United States.

But as we attempt to move away from the extractive toward the regenerative, we will need both the private and public sectors to play a role in providing the resources and policies to move toward a more solutions-oriented approach to solve our modern-day housing question.

A People-Centered Strategy

We cannot transform our current housing system without tenant organizing. We know tenants are best positioned to bring the solutions and strategies required to reinvent our housing system and have a more harmonious relationship with the land.

From policy fights at City Hall to the development of resident-owned and -controlled property management companies that prioritize transformative justice practices instead of punitive measures to ensuring residents have all the amenities they need to thrive, tenants are rising and putting new ideas and strategies to the test.

While our movements have yet to build the level of connection to the land needed to prevent the continued natural resource extraction, we are seeing organized tenants take the fight to both the public and private sectors through strategies to stem the loss of the limited affordable housing stock that still exists in our cities.

The formation of strong tenant unions that enact policy change at all levels of government to ensure renters are protected from speculative practices weakens the financial sector’s hold over the market.

These vital wins and long-term fights will lead to new opportunities to get creative and try alternatives that shift the current economic system to one that centers solidarity—on the path toward a more social and democratic land and housing system.Email

Fernando X. Abarca Abarca

Fernando X. Abarca is a Salvadoran American housing justice organizer based in Los Angeles/Tongva Lands, CA. He is currently the loan fund organizer for Right to the City Alliance.