Some Democratic Party politicians and others who claim to be supporters of taxes based on wealth and income are opposed to California Proposition 40—the billionaire tax— because they fear “billionaires will leave the state.”  There are two major arguments against this logic that I’d like to make here.

Bye-bye Billionaires

Let them go.  They are a disgrace that we don’t need in the Great State of California. They should be ashamed of themselves, but shame about excessive wealth is something they left behind long ago. I will say a prayer for them, and urge that they to take a look at Bill Gates and what he is doing with his wealth, and perhaps read the opening remarks at the Patriotic Millionaires website:

“America currently faces two interrelated problems: 1) authoritarianism and 2) the destabilizing level of inequality that led to its rise. If we do not solve both problems, democratic capitalism in America will fall to authoritarian forces by 2028. The fall of democratic capitalism in America will open the door to global oligarchic dominance which, exacerbated by AI and climate change, will become permanent.

“The solution to this problem is surprisingly simple: structure the economy so that it naturally produces the results needed for a rich, stable and free nation.”

Yes, I know, their solution remains within capitalist confines, so socialists will think they don’t go far enough. But they go farther than most of their counterparts, and the economy in which we now live is a capitalist one that still has some of the forms of democracy. Further, socialists should consider this: if you’re right, take capitalist tactics as far as they can go to teach their limitations.

Which leads me to this: Use Governmental Authority to Sanction Vast Economic Inequality. 

It is imperative for many reasons that the capacity liberals, progressives and the left have and are now building for electoral politics, as demonstrated in the election of the nearly 100 member Congressional Progressive Caucus and especially in the New York mayoral victory of Zohran Mamdani and House victory of AOC be turned into non-electoral economic and political strategies.

There is nothing to be done in the narrowly defined political system to prevent billionaires from bailing out of California. There is lots to be done in strategy and tactics that go outside the usual parameters of “politics.”  The most important of these is that state and local (city councils, boards of supervisors, school boards and others) and governmental purchasing offices can stop buying the products and services of those who leave the state because they oppose just taxation.

Further, regulatory agencies can carefully examine the compliance of the billionaires’ enterprises. If they are so self-absorbed as to be unwilling to pay just taxes, they probably have done a fair number of things to avoid health, safety and other regulations that apply to their businesses.

And Use This Big Gun:  The Boycott

Finally, the people power apparatus that has been built for electoral purposes should add the power of the boycott to its voting arsenal.  As co-coordinator of the United Farm Workers Union (UFW) Schenley Liquor boycott, I learned first hand about the power of the boycott when it is taken seriously as a strategy.

Prior to the UFW boycott, union executive boards adopted resolutions to boycott products and published the names of boycott targets in their newspapers. For the most part, use of the strategy ended there. As you no doubt recognize, these boycotts didn’t do much.

The farm worker boycott took the boycott seriously, and gave it legs to be “on the ground.”

The counterparts to the many young volunteers who now are the legs for liberal, progressive and democratic socialist electoral campaigns were the legs for the boycott along with farm workers who left the fields to join them in urban centers across the country. They staffed ironing boards that were set up in front of religious congregations, liberal/progressive gathering places (like concert performances by left-of-center artists) and union headquarters to get signatures from people who pledged not to buy Schenley Liquor.

Second, they got resolutions passed by organizations to support the boycott. The institutional purchasing power of these organizations was applied to the purchase of table grapes.

It worked.  Schenley Liquor, which owned grape vineyards, recognized the union. (I have to admit that some careful research led to targeting Schenley: Its owner was a liberal Democrat, and its table grapes were peripheral to its main business.)

The boycott spread. At its peak, as many as twenty percent of Americans were not purchasing table grapes. The combined strike and boycott won union recognition in the California Central Valley, with the boycott a major factor in the victory. The first ever labor-management contracts in a large crop were signed. What happened to UFW afterward is another, longer and sad story.

There is no product or service that is not directly or indirectly purchased by individual and institutional consumers. Some may be more known than others. Some may have obvious competitors, offering consumers a clear alternative. Start with those most vulnerable. Build the boycott’s capacity that way, then move on to others.

Conclusion

Lots of strategic thinking went into the farmworker boycott. Many of the people who did it are alive and available to talk about how they did it.

Now is the time to engage in those conversations and add direct economic action to the mounting power of electoral strategy in the people’s arsenal against concentrated wealth and power in the hands of the very few.

…