Employee-owned firms exist in Canada, although there are a relatively small number of them. Friesens, which operates in Manitoba, is one of Canada’s leading book printers. They are employee-owned and democratic. Shift Delivery is a worker cooperative and bike-powered delivery firm serving Vancouver. PCL Construction and Chandos Construction are 100 percent employee-owned.

And democratic employee ownership is popular across the political spectrum. A recent US survey found that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents support the concept of employee ownership and would prefer working for a firm owned by employees.

Democratic employee-owned firms are more grounded in their communities. Employee-owners who have homes, families, and friends to consider are unlikely to vote to move their businesses out of their communities in response to tariffs or other economic shocks. Nor are they going to run around the globe looking for the cheapest labor force. Democratic employee-owned firms also have a track record of weathering economic adversity and facing it with creativity. They are less likely to fail during a recession and more likely to maintain employment and wages for their workers, which also means they can help maintain macroeconomic stability for the wider economy. Research shows that democratic employee-owned firms can be just as or more competitive and profitable than conventional businesses. And they are more likely to distribute wealth more equitably, reducing inequality both within firms and across society. Wealth, of course, makes it easier for people to weather economic adversity.

Additionally, when adopting labor-saving AI technologies — another potential threat to Canada’s workers — employee-owners are positioned to share in the firm’s profits and benefit from efficiencies. When jobs and incomes are protected through employee ownership, AI systems have the potential to make work safer, easier, and more productive. When workers are not in the driver’s seat, however, there’s more danger that AI systems could put people out of jobs and deepen economic inequality.

The Canadian government should act quickly to support and incubate democratic employee-owned firms. There are many actionable policies available that have been tried and tested around the world.

In 2024, Canada’s federal government passed legislation to support EOTs. EOTs hold the shares of a firm in trust for the benefit of the firm’s employees. EOTs make it easier for business owners to sell their firms to their employees, with the purchase price paid out of the firm’s profits over several years, meaning there is no out-of-pocket cost to employees. Grantbook, a company that advises philanthropic foundations, became the first Canadian company to convert to an EOT in January 2025.

The federal government has instituted a partial tax exemption on capital gains realized through the sales of conventional firms to EOTs. This policy creates an incentive for business owners to pursue this option when planning their succession. As a next step, this exemption should be made permanent and extended to worker cooperatives. These tax breaks may be justified by the larger social and economic benefits associated with employee-ownership.

Canada could create a public investment bank with a mandate to cultivate democratic employee-owned firms and provide incentives for conventional banks to lend to these firms. Governments should also ensure that democratic employee-owned firms are eligible for — and prioritized in — existing public investment funds and business support programs. When businesses are being sold or shuttered, workers could be afforded a right of first refusal to purchase them.

Additional tax incentives for democratic employee ownership are also worth considering, e,g, setting lower corporate income tax rates for these firms and providing personal income tax deductions for workers who put their savings toward creating new worker cooperatives.

jacobin.com/2025/05/democratic-workplaces-ownership-control-stability/

For example, an analysis of voting preferences recently presented by two Polish sociologists from Warsaw’s SWPS, Mikołaj Cześnik and Oliwia Szczupska, shows that social class significantly influences the differential support for Tusk’s broad-tent Civic Coalition (KO) and the Left, as compared to right-populist PiS. Belonging to the middle or upper class increases the likelihood of supporting KO and the Left, with the upper class showing a particularly strong preference for KO, even considering control variables. Both the middle and upper classes consistently express stable support for left-wing forces. This leads to a paradox, already described in previous research, that the lower classes around Central and Eastern Europe tend to vote for the far right, despising leftist proposals.

Polish politics, then, is not driven by class positions but by the performance of representation. Even in the heyday of Solidarność or during the transition period, the Left was given voice not by workers but by intellectuals and urban professionals speaking in their name. This has not changed. Left-wing forces today — both Biejat’s and Zandberg’s — are still coalitions of the educated, the managerial, and the downwardly mobile middle class.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/poland-elections-class-rezem-lewica/

Over the last eight years of Trump mania, news coverage has become increasingly sensationalist and facile, focusing less on stories that affect ordinary Americans and lively, high-quality debate about pressing issues than on the next outrageous installment in the Trump saga. Even stations that are critical of Trump allow his bombastic provocations to set the parameters of their coverage. American political media is increasingly difficult to distinguish from a Trump reality show — and functionally close to useless for educating citizens, exposing them to thoughtful articulations of new perspectives, and equipping them to participate in democracy.

Robert McChesney mapped out clear plans for news and info systems that work for all with a system called he called “democratic media,” with outlets funded by the public but free from both market greed and state meddling.

McChesney’s most fully realized proposal, created with John Nichols, is the Local Journalism Initiative (LJI):
- it'd distribute federal funding for journalism democratically at the county level, by allocating about 0.15 percent of GDP annually (roughly $34 billion) to this project, amounting to $100 per person in each county
- This approach draws inspiration from an American tradition: in the 19th century, postal subsidies for newspaper delivery effectively represented 0.21 percent of GDP. We understood then that delivering reliable and accurate information to American citizens was a fundamental component of a functioning democracy and worth pooling our resources to pay for.
- The key innovation is that citizens themselves would determine how funds are distributed. Every three years, adults would receive three votes to allocate among qualified nonprofit news organizations in their county. This multivote system would deliberately encourage media diversity, as no single outlet could receive more than 25 percent of a county’s funding. To qualify, organizations must be locally based nonprofits, operating for at least six months, producing original content regularly, and maintaining independence from larger entities.
- Administered by the US Postal Service, the LJI would establish no government editorial oversight — the only controls would be basic qualification requirements and citizen voting. All content produced using these funds would be freely available online. The system would revive competition in local journalism, replacing the “one newspaper town” model that dominated the late twentieth century with multiple independent voices in each community.
- Pickard offers complementary proposals that address media reform at a more structural level. He envisions a “public option” for journalism. At the funding layer, he proposes a national trust fund of approximately $30 billion annually, supported through multiple revenue streams including taxes on communication oligopolies, proceeds from spectrum sales, and levies on platform monopolies like Facebook and Google
- Particularly relevant to the current debate over NPR and PBS is Pickard’s idea that a public media system would allow journalists to “practice the craft that led them to the profession in the first place.” He calls for worker-run cooperatives and collective ownership models, strengthened by robust unions that democratize newsrooms from within.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/public-media-journalism-npr-pbs/

These challenges must be the focus of the labor left’s energies in the months and years to come. It goes without saying that workplace organizing remains a key task. But something fundamental must also change in the labor left’s electoral orientation. At the very least, a much more confrontational approach toward a party that has actively encouraged class dealignment is needed.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/dealignment-democrats-clinton-obama-trump/

There was still patriarchy in Eastern Europe — getting rid of capitalism doesn’t automatically eliminate patriarchy. But they detached patriarchy from its role in upholding wealth inequality, and that blunted it. There were also still inequalities, but these were inequalities of privilege, not wealth. Even at the highest level of Communist society, there were limits on how big your apartment could be. You couldn’t have a mansion. It was very difficult to get a car, and if you did, it was the same car everyone else got. People showed off by bragging about how many books they’d read and what month they got assigned to visit their communal seaside resorts. (July was the most high-status month to go, by the way.)

In order to attract partners and get social esteem, men were not invested in making more money, which wouldn’t work in a socialist society anyway (because there wasn’t anything to buy). In this context, women chose partners based on attraction, mutual compatibility, shared interests, and affection — not on whether the man could pay the rent, which was irrelevant, because you had housing from the state. These states also provided child allowances, childcare, and paid job-protected parental leave. Under socialism, men had to be attentive and good partners in order to attract women.
"After socialism, once wealth became important for attracting women, men found that it was much easier to just get money than to be interesting."

The result, as I documented in my book Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, was that men ended up investing in being interesting guys that women wanted to be with. Of course, this improved gender relations!

After socialism, once wealth became important for attracting women, men found that it was much easier to just get money than to be interesting. This shift was obviously bad for women, but it was also bad for men. I’ve talked to men who grew up under socialism who say that after 1989 or ’91, they were never really sure if women were with them because they loved them or because they needed their money. They have an idealized view of relationships before capitalism because if a woman was with you, it was because she genuinely liked you. That made men feel secure.

In a society where everything is about wealth, we need other metrics of achievement — you earn esteem not just because you’re rich or ripped, but because of your accomplishments. These kinds of institutions promote self-esteem and prosocial behavior.

But beyond class struggle and civic organizations, the main thing we need is good jobs. Workplaces can serve the same purpose, but in capitalism they absolutely don’t.

Everybody needs money. But beyond that, everybody wants the same thing: to be appreciated, validated, and recognized for who they are and what they give to the world. That’s why Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life was such a huge bestseller. It was a book talking to young men and telling them, “Here are some ways you can get esteem.” They’re hungry for it.

As socialists, feminists, and humanists, we absolutely must understand this. Our politics must be grounded in it, and we should propose viable alternatives that can make people feel better about themselves.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/manosphere-tate-gender-wealth-inequality/

Una risposta a questa domanda la offre la Knesset in questi giorni, approvando una serie di leggi e leggine che, lette nel loro complesso, spianano la strada all’annessione per via amministrativa del 60 per cento del West Bank, ossia la Cisgiordania.

In sostanza il governo Netanyahu lancia una sorta di offensiva burocratica contro i 200mila palestinesi che vivono nella cosiddetta Area C, per spossessarli delle loro proprietà o costringerli a svenderle. Alle scorribande dei coloni protetti dall’’esercito si affiancherà uno stuolo di impiegati, magistrati e periti, incaricati di chiudere la partita.

Sarà l’atto finale di un espansionismo per così dire “democratico”, a norma di legge. Il quotidiano centrista Yedioth Aronot le illustra in un articolo opportunamente intitolato “Come Israele sta muovendo quietamente verso l’annessione de facto del West Bank”.

Tra gli interventi legislativi previsti, i principali mirano a trasferire alle autorità israeliane catasto, perizie e sovrintendenze archeologiche, attualmente in carico all’Autorità palestinese; a riclassificare aree del West Bank come "terra di stato (israeliano)”, scippandole ai proprietari con il pretesto di vaghezze nel titolo di proprietà in origine giordano; a connettere gli insediamenti dei coloni alla rete nazionale del gas; a ribattezzare il West Bank col nome biblico di “Giudea e Samaria”; a cancellare i limiti che attualmente frenano l’acquisto di proprietà palestinesi da parte di cittadini israeliani.

Gli effetti saranno presto visibili. Diventeranno legali gli avamposti che il movimento dei coloni e l’esercito hanno disseminato strategicamente per spezzare la continuità del territorio palestinese.

Altri insediamenti sorgeranno su terreni palestinesi riclassificati come terreni demaniali. E i 200mila palestinesi che vivono nell’Area C vedranno progressivamente svanire quel minimo di legalità che possono ancora opporre alle invasioni dei coloni.

La pressione perché emigrino crescerà. E le tensioni generate saranno occasione o pretesto per altri interventi militari sul genere di quelli occorsi a Jenin e Tulkarem, cittadine del West Bank (Area A, cioè formalmente sotto il controllo diretto dell’Autorità palestinese) “gazaficate” negli ultimi mesi mediante la distruzione delle reti idriche ed elettriche, oltre che di strade ed interi palazzi. Risultato: l’espulsione di 40mila abitanti.

Continuare la guerra di Gaza, oggi sotto occupazione per il 70 per cento, è l’altro versante della manovra a tenaglia israeliana, aggravata dalle sempre più feroci polemiche interne: martedì 20 maggio quella intorno al leader della sinistra Yair Golan, che non ha esitato di dire che oggi Israele «sta diventando uno Stato paria», che «uccide bambini per hobby».

https://www.editorialedomani.it/politica/mondo/la-manovra-a-tenaglia-di-israele-per-annettersi-la-cisgiordania-re1rh1gy