Bankster goes free once more

Former Wells Fargo chief executive John Stumpf is to pay $17.5m (£13.3m) to settle charges over the bank’s fake accounts scandal. He was also banned from working in the financial industry “in any manner” for life.
At the time it was reported that he had walked away from the bank with $130m.
You do the maths and see if not being ever again permitted to work in the financial sector is such a blow to his lifestyle as millionaire.



Universal Credit Services Loan Sharks

Universal credit fuels debt problems for low-income claimants, forcing many into destitution and driving others to loan sharks to get cash for basics such as food, clothes and heating, a leading charity has claimed.



StepChange, the UK’s largest debt charity, said problems relating to universal credit’s design – in particular the five-week wait for a first benefit payment – made it harder for its financially vulnerable clients to manage their money.



It called for significant changes to the design of universal credit to make it fairer, more flexible and generous for the very poorest claimants, nearly half of whom had taken out loans to pay for basic living essentials over the past year.



A quarter of its clients in receipt of universal credit were in problem debt, three times the rate found in the population as a whole and almost twice the rate of claimants on older, “legacy” benefits, it said.
The majority of its clients struggled to make ends meet each month – only 6% said they always came in on budget, and 46% said they always ended the month in the red. More than a third had used food banks or sought help from local charities or churches.



“We already knew that too many people are experiencing hardship and misery through problems with the universal credit system. What is new is the evidence of exactly how universal credit actively worsens debt problems, more so than the legacy benefits system,” said StepChange’s head of policy, Peter Tutton. “Sending people into the arms of loan sharks, and making a debt situation worse at the very time when people most need help, cannot possibly be what social security is for.”



The charity is critical of the system of advance loans introduced by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) as a means of helping penniless new claimants to survive the much-criticised 35-day wait for an initial benefit payment – over twice as long as the typical wait for payment under the old benefits system.

The wait, intended to get claimants used to monthly payments that are the norm in the middle-class world of work, has caused havoc among people used to being paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis, particularly where they have no savings to fall back on.
Although ministers argue the loans have helped mitigate the negative impact of the wait, StepChange found that the strict repayment terms – which deduct up to a third of the benefit each month for a year – turned a short-term income shock for clients into a long-term one, with half finding it difficult to cope as a result.
Clients struggled even more when DWP loan repayments were combined with deductions for tax credit overpayments and council tax debts. Claimants were often unaware deductions would be made until they received reduced benefits. Deductions were at fixed rates, regardless of affordability, often arriving without explanation.
Asked how they coped with benefit deductions, StepChange clients were most likely to cut back on food or heating or ask friends and family for help. Half said the deductions caused them to fall behind on debt repayments. One in 10 said they took out loans from loan sharks.
Commercial credit firms would not be allowed to operate a universal credit-style deductions scheme, said StepChange: “As it stands the social security system would not meet basic regulatory requirements of consumer credit firms to treat customers fairly.”
More than half of StepChange clients who claimed social security met the definition of destitution, meaning they had gone without two or more essentials over the past month because of lack of money. Essentials include eating two meals a day, owning weather-appropriate clothes and being able to buy basic toiletries.







Union Power

Only 6.2% of private sector workers in the U.S. today are union members. This decline has come about as employers intimidate workers into remaining unrepresented and require union leaders to obtain the favor of a majority of workers in order to gain bargaining rights. 



Two academics at Harvard Law School joined with more than 70 labor leaders, activists, and economists to publish the report, entitled “Clean Slate for Worker Power: Building a Just Economy and Democracy.” To effectively combat economic inequality and even the playing field between corporations and the people they employ, the new report argues, the U.S. must entirely overhaul labor laws to provide a “clean slate” for all workers.



“Fundamentally redesigning our labor laws, rather than pursuing incremental reforms to our current laws, would provide the foundation for building powerful organizations for working people,” the authors wrote in Newsweek. “At a time when the foundations of our democracy are being questioned, the project of creating a widespread system of workplace democracy is urgent.”



Professors Sharon Block and Benjamin Sachs to develop, makes a number of recommendations for placing power in the hands of workers—giving them more rights in the workplace than they had at the height of the labor movement and in the 1950s, when union membership in the U.S. was at its highest, at 35%.




“Across our history, access to economic and political power has been unforgivably shaped by racial and gender discrimination, as well as by discrimination based on immigration status, by sexual orientation and identity discrimination, and by ableism,” reads the report. “What we need, then, is a labor law capable of empowering all workers to demand a truly equitable American democracy and a genuinely equitable American economy.”


Under Block and Sachs’s blueprint, companies would be prohibited from compelling employees to attend anti-union meetings or presentations—which have been used by some of the biggest employers in the country—and required to recognize a union once just 25% of workers sign union cards.




“Democracy at work should be a right, not a fight,” reads the report. “For too long, securing power and voice at work has required workers to fight herculean battles against nearly impossible odds.”



Other recommendations include:



the creation of work councils, with members exclusively elected by employees, which would have a say in scheduling, safety measures, equity, and other issues affecting workers; a national just-cause system under which companies would be prohibited from terminating a workers’ employment without sufficient reasoning; a law prohibiting employers from giving replacement employees the jobs of workers who have gone on strike; and mandated paid time off for workers to take part in civic activities, including voting.

Sectoral bargaining, which is common in Europe and supported by two Democratic presidential candidates—  Sanders and  Warren —is another major proposal in the report.




“Through sectoral bargaining, labor law can take wages out of competition, relieving the downward pressure on pay that has so greatly contributed to the increase in income inequality,” Block and Sachs wrote in Newsweek on Thursday. “It would also reduce the incentives that firms now feel to fight unionization, and it would solve the puzzle—which plagues multiple industries and the gig economy—of who qualifies as an ’employee.’ Since all workers would be covered by sectoral agreements, it would no longer matter very much who is an employee and who is not.”


The report also advocates for improving upon the labor laws passed in the early-to-mid 20th century by extending protections and collective bargaining rights to many workers who don’t have them, many of whom are women and people of color.


The labor movement has been largely exclusionary to domestic workers, farmworkers, incarcerated and undocumented people, and independent contractors, Block and Sachs write.
“By starting from a ‘clean slate,’ we can rethink the historical racist and sexist forces that shaped the current, limited landscape,” the report reads.


The proposals were developed with the input of labor leaders including Ai-Jen Poo of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, Saket Soni of the National Guestworker Alliance, Nicole Berner of the SEIU.




Taming capitalism? An impossible task

Greta Thunberg must be getting very used to mixing with the rich and famous. Prince Charles met with Greta at the World Economic Forum in Davos. But it seems more as if it is the rich and famous who are seeking out to have the photo opportunities with Greta to boost their credibility.



The socialist movement is having its trials. This is to be expected. The transition from capitalism to socialism will be tempestuous. It would be folly to even hope for all smooth sailing. Let no comrade despair of the future. We are certain that before long the world will witness heroic rebellions of the people in all countries seeking to break once and for all the chains of exploitation and establish the true free society of socialism. Social ideas now has fertile soil to grow.



Hunger exists in a world of plenty. Why can’t the global food industry feed the hungry? Enough food is produced in the world to provide substantially more than the minimum required for good health. Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the supply of food in the world today. Despite that over-populationists blame too many people. The problem is not too many people. If people could decide what they produce, there would be more than enough food for many times the world’s population.The problem is that only a minority decide – a minority who want to organise production for their own benefit and for no one else’s.



That’s why they promote population numbers as a problem – to prove that hunger and poverty are not the fault of the rich for deciding not to produce what people need, but the fault of the poor and hungry for being too many.



The fact that there is already enough food to feed the world shows that the food crisis is not a technical problem — it is a social and political problem. The global food industry is not organised to feed the hungry; it is organised to generate profits for corporate agribusiness and they are achieving that objective very well indeed. It is profit what counts, no matter what the effect may be on earth, air, and water — or even on hungry people. World hunger can only be ended by ending capitalism.



“…the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture…a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system.” Marx



Workers puzzle over the question of why we can produce so much, how is it that we ourselves get so little? We produce hundreds of times more wealth with the factories than our great-grandfathers did without them. But the things we produce do not belong to us. Why? The answer is simple. The world’s great productive system is owned by a little handful of people who run it for their own profit and not for people’s use. And it can run at full steam and keep running only when society as a whole owns and operates it.



We live in a world where hunger, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, racial and sexual discrimination, and many forms of repression, including the most barbaric, such as torture and genocide, are the lot of the majority of the earth’s inhabitants.



The emancipation of the workers will be accomplished by the workers themselves. They will achieve it through socialist revolution, which will end private ownership of the means of production in order to establish socialist and collective property, and replace capitalist commodity production by the social organisation of production and designed to ensure the complete well-being and full development of each person. As socialists, we cannot accept that it is beyond the ability and intelligence of mankind to solve the problems of hunger, poverty, unemployment or the even greater problems of peace and war.



The unemployed, along with old, the sick, the disabled and single-parent families are forced to lead restricted and often isolated lives in poverty which prevents them from fully participating in the economic, political, cultural and social activity of our society. Socialism stands for all that is best in life, for replacing fear by hope, narrowness and meanness by generosity and compassion, poverty by plenty, exploitation by co-operation and jingoism by comradeship.



Why is it necessary that human beings should work at all? In order that the world may be supplied with goods, of course. Do we therefore rejoice when the world is so supplied? That is the greatest disaster we can imagine. We must labour in order to supply the world, and when the world is supplied we must starve because there is plenty for all and our labour is not needed. Science and invention by increasing the productivity of our labour. One insoluble difficulty of capitalism is to devise a method whereby the march of science and inventive genius can assist industry without menacing the bread and butter of the working class. 



The destruction of the environment of our planet is not caused by scarcity or overpopulation. The problem in large areas of the globe is not over exploitation but under development. Much of Africa’s farmland is not properly irrigated, and the amount of arable land could be vastly increased. Environmentalists often claim that economic growth, or even human society itself, is inherently hostile to nature. Modern technology is not in itself destructive. Some go as far as to associate humanity with a parasite upon the planet. This simplistic opposition between ‘man’ and ‘nature’ is meaningless. Human activity has already changed most of the earth’s surface beyond recognition.



‘We by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like something standing outside nature … we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst … all our mastery consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly. Other animals simply use nature, unlike the hunter, the wolf does not spare the doe which would provide it with the young the next year; the goats in Greece that eat away the young bushes before they grow to maturity, have eaten bare all the mountains of the country …’ – Engels



Capitalism compromises our relation to nature. All production decisions are made by a tiny handful of capitalists, not in the interests of humanity, but purely for profit. Environmental concerns are ignored in the short term scramble for profit. The vast majority of the population who want to live in a safe, healthy world, and to enjoy nature, have no control over decisions that affect our lives. Even at our own workplace we have to struggle for the most meagre health and safety measures. The market can never be harnessed to develop a harmonious relationship with nature. Because it depends on the exploitation of most of humanity, it must keep us subjected. Because its motor force is profit, it will result in the blind destruction of the environment.




“Poverty is bad for your health”

England’s poorest people get worse NHS care than its wealthiest citizens, including longer waiting for A&E treatment, and worse experience of GP services, a study shows. While 134 per 100,000 of the least deprived were admitted to hospital because of pressure sores, the rate among the poorest was three times higher, 394 per 100,000 people.



Those from the most deprived areas have fewer hip replacements and are admitted to hospital with bed sores more often than people from the least deprived areas.



With regard to emergency care, 14.3% of the most deprived had to wait more than the supposed maximum of four hours to be dealt with in A&E in 2017-18, compared with 12.8% of the wealthiest. Similarly, just 64% of the former had a good experience making a GP appointment, compared with 72% of those from the richest areas.

Research by the Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation thinktanks found that the poorest people were less likely to recover from mental ill-health after receiving psychological therapy and be readmitted to hospital as a medical emergency soon after undergoing treatment.



The findings  show that poorer people’s health risks being compounded by poorer access to NHS care. Moreover, previous evidence showed that, while life expectancy is still improving for the best-off, it has stalled or gone backwards among the poorest.



The research found large disparities between richest and poorest in measures of children and young people’s health, including take-up of the MMR vaccine in five-year-olds, teenage pregnancy and admissions for self-harm for under-18s.



“Poverty is bad for your health, and people in the poorest parts of England face a vicious cycle,” said Ruth Thorlby, a co-author and assistant director of policy at the Health Foundation. “Poor living conditions, low quality work and underfunded local services lead to worse health. These findings show that, added to this, those in the most deprived areas are routinely experiencing longer waits in A&E, lower satisfaction and more potentially avoidable hospital admissions,” she added.
“These findings show some concerning trends about the knock-on effects an overstretched NHS is having on the people in England who often need it most,” said Sarah Scobie, deputy director of research at the Nuffield Trust and the other co-author. “My worry is that continued pressure on the NHS is only going to exacerbate inequalities, despite the very best of intentions from staff to provide fair and equal care.”
Dr Stephen Jivraj, an associate professor in the faculty of population health sciences at University College London, said: “These findings point to an inverse care law where those most in need of health services are experiencing the poorest quality. They provide context to why the gap in health between rich and poor is getting larger, as shown in recent research from UCL. The increase in the gap between deprived areas and less deprived areas is worrying.”

Lebanon – No future

Lebanon announced the formation of a new government on Tuesday following three months of political blockade. However, the protesters say the new government comprises the same people they have been rallying against since October 17. Protesters have been calling for sweeping reforms and a government that is led by independent technocrats and that can deal with the crippling economic crisis and widespread corruption. Protesters reject members belonging to the current political elite, which has ruled Lebanon since the end of its civil war in 1990 and is considered responsible for the country’s economic crisis. Lebanon has been without an effective government since caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, under pressure from protests against state corruption and mismanagement, resigned in October.



“We want the government to work according to our needs. If not, to hell with them,” said Mohammed, a 23-year-old protester. “If anything, the old cabinet that we rallied against is slightly better than this ‘one colour’ government,” he said, using a term to describe the new cabinet backed by Hezbollah

and its allies. “They’re still stealing from us. We don’t have electricity, we don’t have hospitals, and we are starving to death,” Mohammed added. “We’re forced to escalate, the revolution is no longer peaceful … we gave them a chance for 30 years.”


The country’s newly appointed Prime Minister Hassan Diab pledged on Tuesday that his government “will strive to meet their  demands for an independent judiciary, for the recovery of embezzled funds,  for the fight against illegal gains”.  He also said his cabinet will adopt financial and economic methods different from those of previous governments, amid the country’s worst economic crisis in decades. 

Protesters insist that only a government of independent experts will have what it takes to save the country. Calls to dismantle ruling parties, which include groups that transitioned into politics since the country’s civil war, have also been a major demand of the protesters.



“It’s bullshit … they’re playing with us. They are the same people with different faces,” Stephanie, a 30-year-old protester, said of the new government. “People are here because they have no jobs and they’re trying to tell the government that a change if needed. “But nothing is happening … they’re still robbing us, torturing us, treating us like we don’t deserve anything good,” she said. 



“When they put people like us in charge, people who really want to help us get out of this, I will go home,” added Stephanie. Despite a heavy security presence, people chanted slogans against Prime Minister Diab. Security forces responded by firing water cannons to disperse the crowds. “They’re here throwing water at us and I don’t even have water at home,” Stephanie shouted in dismay. 




“This is really sad,” 25-year-old Hamza said of the current economic situation. 

“We don’t deserve this. They control our jobs and our economy,” he said of the government, which he described as an “oligarchy”. 



Like many young people in Lebanon, Hamza said he still hasn’t managed to finish college due to a lack of funds. He turned around to look at the protesters throwing stones near the front lines and said: “Everyone throwing rocks right now doesn’t have money … we are all desperate.” 



Tasneem, aged 15, told Al Jazeera that she fears for her future and wants to live in a country where she feels “protected”. 



“I want an education … Until now I feel like there is no future for me.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/violent-protests-beirut-follow-lebanon-cabinet-meeting-200122161944258.html

Hard to breathe in Pakistan

In 2015, an estimated 135,000 Pakistanis died due to air pollution, a study published in the medical journal The Lancet found. Perhaps more crucially, the study found that air pollution cost Pakistanis more than 42.3 million disability-adjusted life years – averaged out over Pakistan’s cities, where air pollution is concentrated, that amounts to more than a year off every single urban citizen’s life. 



Come October, changing weather patterns, high levels of environmental pollution and seasonal crop burning combine to make the air in Lahore some of the most toxic in the world, with the city’s air quality index (AQI) reading regularly topping 500 (the upper limit on most meters), according to AirVisual, an international air quality monitoring service. The AQI is a measure formulated by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to measure how healthy or polluted air is, and takes into account levels of five major air pollutants. Any reading higher than 100 is considered “unhealthy”, with readings higher than 300 considered “hazardous”, according to international standards. Pakistan’s classification system for AQI considers levels up to 200 to be “satisfactory”. The AQI during the four months between October and January rarely dips below “hazardous” levels. According to a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO) report commissioned by the Punjab government, roughly 43 percent of the province’s air pollution is attributable to vehicle emissions. A further 24 percent is from industrial emissions, 20 percent from the burning of crops in the winter season, and 12 percent from the country’s mainly coal- and furnace oil-fired power plants. Pakistan uses Euro-II standards for the quality of fuels used in vehicles, which allows for higher levels of pollutants. For example, the sulphur content in Euro-II grade diesel fuel is roughly 50 times higher than current global standards.

This year, for the first time ever, the provincial government shut down schools for three days due to hazardous air quality, asking citizens to remain indoors as much as possible. For many in Pakistan, where the average per capita income is less than $1,600 a year, staying indoors, however, is simply not an option.



“My whole family can eat only because I am running this pushcart,” says Jalal Hazrat Syed, a 24-year-old migrant to Lahore who sells household electrical equipment off a wooden cart in the old city. “If I shut it down, what will they do? It’s easier for those who work in offices. If I don’t work for a day, we don’t eat that day.”

This year, the government and activists have been encouraging citizens to wear filter face masks to protect themselves while outdoors in the smog, as well as to install air purifiers at home to filter the air. The main danger from the smog is high levels of particulate matter that is less than 2.5 microns in diameter, known as PM2.5. Such particles can be absorbed directly into the blood and organs after being breathed in, and have been linked to higher rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems and other diseases. Pakistan’s standard for “safe” levels of PM2.5 in the air is 35 microns per cubic metre. At the peak of smog season, the level was regularly more than 15 times that amount.
For many in Pakistan, however, buying air purifiers for their homes or workspaces is out of the question, given their high cost.
“We would see the smog descend in the evenings, mostly,” said Faiz-ul-Islam, 30, a tea seller in the city’s congested Shah Alami market. “It is unlikely, given I earn 15,000 rupees a month [$96], that I would be able to buy an air purifier.” Islam says he has no choice but to go to work, no matter what the air quality, because he needs to earn a living. “I cannot survive for a single day without going outside and working,” he says. “If we are forced to stay home, I will be forced into debt, and it will take months to work it off.”
Most air purifiers in Pakistani stores are imported, with prices starting at about 30,000 rupees ($194), or roughly double the monthly minimum wage. Prices for face masks certified to filter out PM2.5 particles are more affordable, however, with most masks retailing for roughly 200 rupees (about $1.30).



In September, thousands of young people marched in 26 cities across the country to register their protest against unsustainable climate policies, joining a global movement dubbed the Global Climate Strike.



Nida Afzal, a student at Lahore’s Punjab University, was among those marching.



” I am living under a system that is oppressing me and doesn’t allow me to speak the truth, then I should leave that system, right?” she says. “That seems to be anarchist, but it is really not anarchist. It is about communicating your opinion to power.



Students are now [engaging in this activism] because they know their rights,” she says. “[Authorities] don’t argue with us the same way, because they know … that we really shut them up. That’s the pride of this movement. How Greta  speaks, you know?” Afzal says the time for governments to act is fast running out, and that for her, “it is do or die now”.”We have known about climate breakdown for 30 years, and we have been warned by scientists. We have now taken that stand, that we have to do something, because if we don’t work together, we die together.” Afzal works with the UK-based eXtinction Rebellion (XR), a climate activism group that conducts civil disobedience protests where activists court arrest in order to force authorities to take notice of climate change.In Pakistan, however, Afzal says it is more difficult to conduct those kinds of protests. “They couldn’t happen here, because people are scared. Over there, people are educated and very privileged. Their protests are flooded with middle-class white people, who are privileged,” she says. She believes privileged Pakistanis will have to use their social power to agitate for change. “The people will have to come forward and say, us educated people. A labourer cannot come forward to put his life and his wages in danger to say that they don’t accept corporations. We should not expect that, either. We need to work with them and work for their rights, but we should not expect them to be revolutionaries.”



“Young people are easier to convince. It is more probable that a young person is more aware of this issue than someone in their mid-30s,” says Raza Goraya, 25, a lawyer who co-founded the Clean Air Campaign in Lahore. Goraya warns, however, that opposition to sustainable policies appears to be based in a paradigm that pits development against environmentally friendly policies. “It is ingrained that pollution is necessary. That development with sustainability being brought into the equation is not possible, not on a fast pace.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/smog-istan-pakistanis-created-equal-200123081038630.html

“Centibillionaires”

A new category for the ultra-rich has been coined: “centibillionaires,” those who have amassed more than $100 billion.



As tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, by the end of 2019, the 500 richest people saw their total haul jump by 25 percent, with $1.2 trillion added to their collective net worth.



Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, is one of them, and he piled up and extra $27 billion in personal wealth last year. Bill Gates of Microsoft added $22 billion to his stash. And even though Amazon czar Jeff Bezos lost $9 billion last year in a divorce settlement, his fortune multiplied so much that he’s still the world’s richest person.



The moneyed elite did nothing to earn these extra bonanzas. They didn’t work any harder, didn’t get smarter, didn’t add anything of value to society. They simply  let their money make money. Their money does all the work to lift them above everyone else.  The bulk of their booty goes to making them even richer, buying out other corporations, acquiring advanced technologies, dumping billions into Wall Street with buy-backs, intentionally and artificially jacking up the price of stocks you own. Your wealth expands exponentially; inequality spreads further and faster



Rupert Murdoch saw his riches fall by $10 billion in 2019 but only because he doled out that wad of wealth to his six children. Thus were born six brand new  billionaires who did nothing to reach the top of the world’s financial heap except possess a wealthy father.  For others it can take hard work, creativity, perseverance and luck to become a millionaire, but in today’s skewed wealth system, multibillionaires don’t need any of that. No money worries, set for life.  Mansions and penthouses galore, luxury yachts, private jets, jewels, personal islands and other “trivial” trinkets barely dent their multibillionsl. Of course funding political front groups to protect your interests and financing corporate-friendly candidates takes a little bit of your wealth, as do some charity donations so to ensure some good publicity and appease your conscience.



From here

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/here-are-the-dirty-secrets-of-how-the-rich-become-the-uber-rich/?utm_source=push_notifications




Be disobedient – think for yourself (2006)

 From the January 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let’s rebel! Let’s free ourselves from the corrupt, rapacious society we live in!
We workers produce, organise, and manage production for a minority of capitalists who own what we produce; then, from the sale of the products we make, the capitalists accumulate more capital from profits. Some of the profits are reinvested to have us work to develop the production facilities for the owners, the remainder of the profits are used by the owners to expand their wealth and extend their power by controlling their governments and “persuading” politicians, both nationally and internationally.
Let us change this way of running affairs! We workers produce and distribute all goods; let us own everything and abolish private property, so everyone can democratically decide how to care for each other.
This division of world society into those who own and control capital (the capitalist class), and those who have to work to increase the capitalists’ wealth (the working class) must be abo1ished and replaced by a co-operative society of common ownership by freely associating individuals – that is everyone. A real inclusive society of carers with no selfish, private owning capitalists, as now , accumulating wealth and running society through their politicians and governments.
Under common ownership real democracy will work; everyone can participate fully in administration and be heard – not like now, when the 30 seconds it takes you to put a cross on the ballot paper is ignored for years by politicians too busy pocketing brown envelopes.
Within a society of common ownership, if there are individuals elected they will be controlled by the electors and subjected to immediate recall. This means the elected will be servants of the electors, and recalled to be removed immediately by those who elected them, if they do not follow the instructions of those who gave them the chance to be public servants.
The evidence that everyone has equal power and an equal vote in every decision taken will be obvious within this future society by the removal of the threat of hunger, exercised under capitalist society against all who are unwilling to accept the conditions of work and compliance. Within this future society of freely associating, equal individuals, every man, woman and child will take what goods they want from a communal store. This free access, this freedom is what will maintain real democracy, and it will be possible because money will be unnecessary and non-existent.
Money is a means of exchange in capitalist society. A form of rationing by the owners of the non-owners – no money, no goods. In a society of common ownership and free access – we use the word socialism to describe it – everybody will own everything, so why would we want to pay ourselves? Our common sense will tell us not to waste what could be shared with others.
As socialists we want to participate in a global-community progression to free humankind’s real human potential. We are all equals, if different. We don’t accept leaders, which is why we invite you to ignore leaders too. Begin to free yourself, be disobedient, think for yourself, ask questions, and inquire after the case we suggest.


– leaflet issued by socialists in Ireland.