Western Massachusetts CPUSA

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has rejected two very different ballot measures – one that the Communist Party strongly supported (rent control), and one that we strongly opposed (an income tax reduction for the wealthy). 

While these two cases seem opposed, we can see a shared logic between the decisions. The SJC, acting as an arbiter of the class interests of the largest property holders and the Massachusetts political class (which are not wholly distinct categories), moved to maintain their political hegemony.

Rent control challenges the otherwise unmitigated rights of landlords to rent off property and living spaces at exorbitant costs, appealing to “market rents” and other rhetorical devices to justify it. Sections of capital invested in the production of housing as a commodity, itself the root of the housing crisis, have already invested millions into a smear campaign against the now-defunct ballot initiative. 

The compromise legislation that may pass instead of the ballot question only allows a town-by-town rent stabilization policy, while large landlords and investment companies operate on statewide, national, and international levels. The compromise better suits the wishes of the dominant economic and political coalition, as well as leading forces of the coalition for rent control. Landlord and developer lobbies intend to prevent implementation of local rent controls with the threat of capital strikes; meanwhile, seeking to protect their privileged relationships with state officials, leading nonprofits behind the ballot initiative offered up the movement itself as a concession. Sensing the fluctuating balance of forces on each side, some local elected officials and organizations endorsed the compromise legislation only to denounce it moments later; others supported the compromise under pressure from the ballot initiative campaign, and are now set to reassess.

Contrary to the cynical rhetoric of leading forces seeking the compromise, which have called for a right of cities and towns to “choose what’s best for them”, WMCP and other progressive forces demand what is best for all of us: universal rent controls and tenant protections.

The cutting of income tax, on the other hand, would have handed a victory to a rising coalition of fascists and “fiscal hawks” while limiting the ability of the Democratic supermajority to dispense patronage through the state budget. The reactionary forces behind the tax-cut initiative could leverage these weaknesses, as well as popular anger channeled through the legislative audit movement, to displace the current dominant coalition in the state. As with the rent control ballot initiative, the SJC has acted not in the interest of working people, but with the sole intent of controlling the legal terrain of class struggle. 

Through these decisions, the scope of political questions to be resolved through statewide referendum has been severely constrained. We in the WMCP see an unsteady situation, where there is a necessity for left-center unity, and for the working class to lead progressive and democratic forces in the construction of a new consensus that can stop fascism.

-Western Massachusetts club, CPUSA