3.5 Democracy or plutocracy?

This question of democracy or plutocracy frames a struggle which engages people in every country. The authors acknowledge that their vantage point is that of Canada. This experience undoubtedly shapes this argument. Readers from other countries will no doubt have to bear this in mind and translate this argument into the perspective and circumstances of their own countries.

While the authors' geographic and cultural frame of reference inevitably shapes the emphasis in what follows, the capitalist economic and political system that needs to be changed is a global one. The dominant economic force in this system (the transnational capitalist class) is the same one everywhere, one which can be symbolically represented as "Wall Street", by which is meant the international network of mainly publicly-traded private-for-profit corporations, some of the largest of which are now considered "too-big-to-fail", with headquarters usually in the core capitalist countries (principally the United States, the European Union and Japan), but also in China, Russia, Brazil, India and other countries, including state run corporations that function within the global capitalist food chain dominated by transnational capitalist corporations. The struggle against what Wall Street represents – self-interest over public welfare - is a global struggle. Readers from all parts of the world where this work may be read (thanks, in part, to the internet) have equally vital roles to play in ending Wall Street's dominance and moving forward towards a green social democratic world.

Why does strengthening democracy matter? What is the relationship of Wall Street to democracy?

In truth, democracy has a different meaning to different groups of people. It can even have a different significance to the same person depending on which hat they choose to wear. For the majority of capitalists, those who own small businesses outside of Wall Street, greater democracy might mean a more level playing field in which to compete. For all of us, it means the opportunity to achieve or preserve laws, regulations and other government actions that serve and protect us.

Here we briefly consider this question in relation to the various segments of the capitalist class and how this concerns the rest of us. For managers of publicly-traded companies and others who have access to enormous income or wealth, democracy can seem to represent a threat. The majority might decide, especially through tax and estate laws, to limit or reduce large, personal rewards of income and inheritance. With growing wealth and income inequality and consequent social, economic and environmental instability, the wealthiest may have reason to worry. Taking a longer range view, they might, however, find it more to their interest and certainly more ennobling to support greater equality, as many of them already do.

Narrow class interest is only part of the threat of Wall Street to democracy. The relationship between Wall Street and government is shaped by laws that assign to the managers of publicly-traded companies the fiduciary duty to give priority to maximizing the profits of their shareholders. Not only does this legal responsibility provide opportunity and incentive for managers to award each other hefty salaries and bonuses, it sets profit as a priority over the public good. A duty to profit-making trumps environmental protection, worker safety, job creation, and support for democratic institutions. At the very least, regulation of corporate behavior and diligent enforcement are needed to protect the public. And that requires a democracy that is beyond the manipulation and effective control of publicly-traded corporations and their representatives.

At stake in the fight for democracy is government responsibility to act on the people's behalf. Our relationship to nature is mediated by the economic systems we construct through government regulation and law. Healthy economies functioning within healthy natural environments are what we need to sustain us now and into the future. Democratic government is our principal route to achieve these.

What are the circumstances that make this struggle for democracy once again a major item on the agenda of progressives world-wide?

Here, we focus on the United States, but the story in most of the rest of the world, including Canada, the authors' homeland, is similar or at least closely connected. See, for example, Armine Yalnizyan (2010,CCPA) The Rise of Canada's Richest 1% and Linda McQuaig & Neil Brooks (2010,Viking Canada) The Trouble with Billionaires for Canadian accounts of income and wealth accumulation and cogent arguments that the current extremes are a threat to the health and well-being of all.

After a four decade reversal of the post-World War II gains in the political and economic spheres, the American people once again find themselves in a position practically identical to that of the late 1920s in the degree of wealth and income concentration and corresponding concentration of political power. After four decades of deregulation of private-for-profit corporate behavior and the consequent economic, social and environmental crises this has provoked, only relatively minor corrections in policy and law have been made. A parallel process has occurred in all the more developed capitalist countries, affecting all peoples around the globe.

The main positive outcome of the 2008 financial crisis (the so-called Great Recession) has been the exposure of the nature and depth of the problem, described in scores of thoughtful books and hundreds of critical articles that have been published on the crisis and its causes. Naked and exposed are the too-big-to-fail megalithic private-for-profit publicly-traded corporations, especially the financial ones that brought the world economy to the brink of collapse.

For accounts of the 2008 financial crisis, see, for example:

Simon Johnson and James Kwak (2010, Pantheon Books), 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown; Robert Scheer (2010, Nation Books), The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street; Dean Baker (2010, PoliPoint Press), False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy; Fred Magdoff & Michael D. Yates (2009, Monthly Review Press), The ABCs of the Economic Crisis: What Working People Need to Know; Clyde Prestowitz (2010, Free Press) The Betrayal of American Prosperity; John Cassidy (2009, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, USA or Viking Canada) How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities.

For those who want a concise argument about the current stage of monopoly-finance capitalism, linking the predictions of Marx, the elaboration by Keynes and more contemporary modifications based on current statistical data, see John Bellamy Foster, The financialization of accumulation, Monthly Review Press (October 2010), 62:5:1-17, available online at www.monthlyreview.org.

Similarly, the environmental risks of for-profit corporate management of increasingly difficult to access oil and gas reserves was brought to global attention by the 2010 Gulf oil crisis, the reckless fracking for shale gas in many parts of the world, the environmentally lethal exploitation of the Canadian tar sands and the drive to open up the environmentally sensitive arctic basin to mineral extraction. Compounding this reality and in some measure overshadowing it has been the global recognition of the role of the fossil fuel industry in resisting action to limit greenhouse gas caused climate change. Cumulatively, these and subsequent exposures have engendered an environmental movement that increasingly merged with the labor, indigenous, feminist and other people's movements in a renewed, serious challenge to global capitalism after several decades of relative quiescence. Wall Street, as an octopus with tentacles that reach out to all receptive parts of the world, became a unifying symbol of the need for global solidarity in the struggle for more just, stable, environmentally friendly economic activity.

Weakening the octopus by breaking off its tentacles is an essential part of the struggles for substantially healthier, fully functional democratic systems everywhere. Victories by those in the heartlands of monopoly-finance-capital open the doors to greater victories by the peoples of other countries and vice-versa. There are roles for everyone to play in this global struggle for democracy and environmentally stable economies. International solidarity is not only a necessary means to success, it is an important outcome of this struggle, a part of preparing the ground for a greater role for international law and justice.

What are the key elements in an effective challenge to Wall Street? What can we learn from those already in action? How can we best defend civil society against the menace monopolistic capitalist corporations represent? What are the minimum changes that should be sought in government policy to avert environmental and social disasters? What changes are necessary to secure society against further threat from the menace of Wall Street?

We can act to:

1. Weaken the deadly anti-democratic cancer before it further metastasizes

A strengthened democracy is a means as well as one of the principal aims of green social democratic policy. Key democratic demands include laws that reduce the political power of private-for-profit corporations and wealthy individuals over the electoral process and over elected officials and senior civil servants. These include the strengthening or creation of laws, as needed, concerning:

* campaign finance - with the aim of limiting allowable individual and corporate donations to campaigns and requiring public disclosure of all political campaign contributions;
* political speech by private-for-profit corporations - with the aims of (i) requiring public disclosure of the funding sources of all paid political advertising, including any private-for-profit corporate funding and (ii) limiting the political speech of private-for-profit corporations (up to and including, as apparently needed in the United States, a constitutional amendment to the effect that citizenship rights, including freedom of speech, belong only to persons and specifically not to private-for-profit publicly chartered corporate entities);
* lobbying of government - with the aim of eliminating the influence of lobbies that act on behalf of private-for-profit corporations, reducing the lawful relationship between these corporations and government to the necessary provision by these corporations of information requested by elected officials and government regulatory bodies;
* revolving doors – with the aim of prohibiting the rotation of employment between policy positions in government, including elected office, advisory positions and regulatory responsibility, and the private-for-profit corporations that are being regulated, eliminating the use of this form of private economic power to influence and control elected legislators and regulatory officials;
* proportional representation - with the aim that every vote have equal weight in the formation of representative bodies, that the diversity of views and opinions existing in society be represented by elected representatives in the deliberative work of elected bodies;
* accountability, transparency, public consultation, recall and referenda – with the aim that the role of elected and appointed officials be transformed from governors to facilitators of informed public decision-making on all major issues concerning the public's health and welfare.

Laws that strengthen democratic practice, however, will never be sufficient to guarantee popular sovereignty as long as megalithic, too-big-to-fail private-for-profit corporations exist. Their economic power, now including an implicit threat to collapse civil society if they don't get their way, is a fact of life. The threat this megalithic economic power poses to civil society will remain so long as corporations with this level of power are permitted to exist. This is the main lesson from the ongoing global economic crisis and the cumulative result of for-profit corporations' role and responsibility for environmental crises.

While the process has varied across regions and countries, the democratic rights of all people across the globe are undermined by the growth in concentration of wealth and associated political power. In many countries of the more economically developed world, the majority of people have lost many of the progressive gains made over previous decades. But even this level of success in the class war waged by the wealthiest against the rest has not satiated their ambition. The most aggressive representatives of the economic elite were emboldened by these achievements to demand further reductions, if not elimination, of all government commitments that offer a measure of dignity and economic security to the majority. In effect, the more aggressive representatives of the wealthiest among us have been threatening the very system that has sustained vast private wealth accumulation. This is particularly notable in the United States, where the US Supreme Court's affirmation of the citizenship rights of corporations and the unrestrained use of this corporate power to speak overwhelmed public political discourse with the messages that the wealthiest want Americans to hear.

Our first response, then, is defense against this menace. Effective defense against such a powerful force requires the common action of all the healthy forces of human society in all parts of the globe where Wall Street (global capitalism in its present stage) operates. For this, the recognition that Wall Street is dangerous to the health of our social and natural environment is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. People must not only be convinced of the danger of continuing global rule by Wall Street and its representatives. They must be convinced that rule by Wall Street is unnecessary, that there are viable, realistic alternative economic policies and practices. Hence this contribution to discussion.

2. Remove the cancer.

As such a movement, which we have defined as a green social democratic one, but which may and does, of course, take many other names, becomes the leading cultural and political force in all corners of the globe, it will then be possible to remove the cancer, restore the patient, build up its defenses against any future attack and construct healthy economies as the basis for healthy societies.

The decisive step will be putting an end to the largest private-for-profit corporations, beginning with corporations that are too-big-to fail, including both financial and non-financial ones. An opportunity to take the first step will be presented on each occasion that some of these corporations face bankruptcy. A continuing boom-and-bust economic cycle guarantees these opportunities.

Likewise, each time the actions of an energy corporation causes significant environmental damage or loss of life, there will be another opportunity. Such opportunities are likely to appear right up to and including the opportunity to end the last dangerous for-profit company. Rather than bailing out these companies when they face bankruptcy, either from financial losses or from the cost of the damage their action has caused, a green social democratic majority will have the opportunity through their influence or majority in government to place these companies under public trusteeship and distribute their assets to where they can safely and productively continue to be put to use.

When the necessary functions of the bankrupt company can be performed by a large number of distributed, smaller, locally managed and operated enterprises, this should be the preferred destination of the dangerously large company's physical assets. Examples of the viability of smaller businesses is everyday illustrated by existing small and medium sized enterprises as well as community banks and local financial services and other local businesses and organizations.

When centralized coordination is necessary or beneficial, but decentralized delivery of goods or services is involved, most of the assets can be allocated to the latter, with the remainder, as needed, allocated to a centralized agency or facility, which in turn could henceforth be democratically run by representatives of the distributed enterprises which the center coordinates. This could be the case, for example, with retail stores. It could also be made the case, for example, in relation to energy, communication and manufacturing industries, where the base units could be the individual providers and distributors, which could democratically in a bottom to top fashion elect the management of the necessary coordinating agency.

The transition to a green social democracy, including an end to Wall Street, can and should be accompanied by a combination of basic income guarantees to all and the free universal provision of education, healthcare and other communal goods and services, enshrining the right of all to live securely in dignity. The transition can and should be achieved with protection of the savings of ordinary people. Some of these savings are presently invested in publicly traded companies, including pension funds to which ordinary people have contributed. While these savings cannot be protected against market failure, they should not be put in jeopardy by governments in the process of transition to a green social democracy. Instead, a grandfather clause can and should in each instance be put in place to protect and assure working people that their interests will be fully protected right from the beginning of the transition from rule by Wall Street to the establishment of a green social democracy.

Wall Street, by definition, ends when the ownership and management of all the services and products of publicly-traded companies are by law transferred to more human scale ownership and management.

3. Create an economic democracy

The process of creating an economic democracy will self-evidently vary from country to country and with the circumstances of the transition to a green social democracy. For example, those in developing countries locked into a system of financial dependency on capital from the core capitalist countries are faced with the necessity of breaking that dependency. This may mean breaking agreements signed by their own comprador class of political, economic and military leaders and substituting agreements with other countries that have or are breaking free of such agreements. This necessarily includes replacing so-called "free" trade agreements with fair trade ones. The strength or weakness of the economy, environmental health and democratic functioning of the country in transition are among the other variables that will shape the process of creating an economic democracy.

Economic units. From the beginning in every country, the process of creating an economic democracy includes breaking up monopolistic private-for-profit businesses, in the first place those that participate in Wall Street, in favor of economic units that are more amenable to democratic guidance by the communities in which they operate (rather than vice-versa!). Smaller privately owned businesses are in that respect better than oligopolistic ones. Better yet are cooperatively owned and operated economic units, including family owned and operated ones, working in close collaboration with democratically functioning local communities. And still better are those cooperatives and family businesses that operate as non-profits in service to meet the needs of the communities in which they function.

Public banks. To eliminate dependency of the local economy on for-profit financial institutions, local governments can establish publicly owned and community operated financial services (public banks), keeping wealth created by the community within the community. Of course, public banks can also be created for each larger scale of economic activity, including state/provincial, federal and international public banks, each associated with the corresponding level of government.

Fair distribution and labor's organizational rights. Laws are needed, however, to ensure that earnings of privately owned businesses are fairly distributed among their workers, that all workers have the opportunity to have input into the planning and decision-making, and that workers who do not equally share in the ownership are protected by collective bargaining. The presence of a democratically functioning employee union, independent of ownership and management, should be a condition of the license of any business not owned by its workers. This, of course, would be a revolutionary change, one that by itself would be a gigantic step forward towards a truly democratic society, one no longer politically and economically dominated by a select few.

The public sector. While privately owned businesses operating in a regulated market economy along with cooperatively owned and operated ones could be the characteristic economic units in the transition to a green social democracy, some purposes would be best served by public, non-profit units and institutions. Science, education and information media, for example, would be in this category to ensure disinterested sources of information.

Advertising. In relation to all goods and services, regardless of the form of ownership of the economic units providing them, sources of information unbiased by economic or political self-interest are essential to consumer decision-making in a fully democratic society. As consumers, voters and stewards of the economy and the environment, people in a green social democracy would have the right to financially unbiased sources of information and knowledge. Indeed, for a democracy with a market economy to function efficiently and fairly to all, the generation and communication of information about the available services and goods would need to be undertaken by publicly accountable, non-profit organizations operating at arms-length from the units (public or private) that are providing the goods and services.

Evidently required is a revolution in the manner information is obtained and provided to the public about the availability and quality of goods and services. But what about the cost to consumers of this needed change? Are businesses and governments not doing us a favor by advertising themselves and their wares? Should we not leave all testing and research to those providing the goods and services? As most consumers may already realize, the costs of research and advertising are included in the cost of the goods and services we purchase and receive. This is true even of government services, which are paid for by taxation, that is, directly or indirectly by consumers of the services. As to government self-advertising, to cite a most egregious example, how often is it that the ruling party uses its power and our money to advertise itself prior to an election? In some countries, for example Mexico, this practice is illegal, as it should be, but even in those countries the law is generally ignored in the absence of independent media.

In other words, we as consumers already pay for the information we receive about available goods and services, including the entertainment that often comes along with the advertising. But what about the quality of this information? (or for that matter the quality of the entertainment?) In practice, we are paying to be misled. It is unlikely that better sex comes with the purchase of a particular brand of beer or a particular make of car! It is similarly unlikely that better government services are provided by the ruling political parties that spend the most telling us that this is so. In most cases, we are better informed (and certainly more reliably informed) by independent sources of information. Laws that would make this mandatory, enforced by sufficiently onerous penalties, would by themselves go a long way towards transforming the neoliberal capitalist societies in which we now live into green social democratic ones.

Competition within the public service sector. In the preceding chapter, presenting the theoretical perspective that guides this work, the authors argued for competition within the public service sector as a means to achieve more responsive results, but only to the extent that it occurs within a green social democracy. The authors believe that such services as education, scientific research, information media and financial services should be provided by competitive units, chartered and regulated by local government, but free from governmental micromanagement.

The leadership role of government in these cases, we contend, should be limited to:

- establishing and enforcing relevant laws and regulations;
- communicating public goals in the form of basic policy; and
- organizing periodic performance reviews of the competing units.

The level of government most directly involved would depend on the nature of the service. In the case of schools, for example, such leadership could come primarily from the local community, but one of sufficient scale to offer a variety of options. For that purpose, a school could be defined as a group of educators rather than a physical structure, allowing for a diversity of emphases within even smaller local districts.

Performance reviews would then guide staff development and changes in responsibilities, enabling all to grow and each to find the best fit between community needs and their individual talents and abilities. The closer a given community is to becoming a fully functioning green social democracy with fully adequate levels of base income, social services for all and guarantees of full employment, the more likely that the services provided would meet the developing needs of all members of the community.

We contend all this on logical grounds. In the absence of an attempt at such an approach to providing government services, we cannot confirm that this change would have the positive results we anticipate. But it should be evident to all that only a green social democratic society, as defined here - and certainly not a neoliberal capitalist one - is likely to attempt such a change towards more responsive, democratic provision of government services. Indeed, neoliberal governments often seem only to be able to think of dismantling those parts of government service that don't directly serve the cause of private capital accumulation. Their aims are better served by making public services as inefficient as possible, thereby persuading us to turn their provision over to the private sector.

Learning from failed alternatives to capitalism. We do have to respond to the failings, including waste and inertia, of the self-declared "socialist" regimes of the 20th Century. These authoritarian regimes based their "centralized planning" on poor quality information when not deliberate misinformation from their alienated subordinates, who had good reason to be fearful of reprisals when they did not provide the kind of data expected by the "planners" or otherwise failed to agree with the centralized decisions.

However, we also need to acknowledge that these regimes were fought for and created by people who resisted capitalism, including many who openly declared their opposition and in that respect anticipated the current re-emergence of both resistance and opposition to capitalism. While the fierce response by a more powerful capitalism to the emergence of a force which challenged its power and authority largely explains the conditions under which the embattled self-declared "socialist" regimes failed, we should learn what we can from this experience. An analysis of their failure provides convincing evidence of the continuing powerful influence of capitalist culture even on those who resist and oppose it, including the continuation of hegemonic, especially masculine, ambition and authoritarian practices. To break free from the capitalist system we must learn to break free from its culture, especially its example of social relationships. For more arguments on this theme, including this and other conclusions progressive analysts have learned from the failures of 20th century socialism, see our Chapter 6.

As to socialist centralized planning, which continues to be advocated by many opponents of capitalism, perhaps a few more comments would be useful here. Its practice within self-described socialist governments, whether in capitalist or self-described socialist countries, probably owes more to the example of either Tsarism (as in the case of the old Soviet Union) or the central planning capacity of behemoth capitalist corporations and the increasingly centralized executive power of the governments that represent them than it does to any socialist theorist, least of all Karl Marx, who envisioned the alternative to capitalism as self-government by the associated working people, as in the example of the Paris Commune of 1871.

The logical alternative to the kind of "centralized planning" that takes place within capitalist or capitalist-style institutions is fully accountable, immediately recallable and frequently rotating representation of the base economic and community units in which the people work and live. In the former, decision-making power resides with the centralized planners, in the latter with the people themselves. Green social democratic practices are evident in oppositional actions by the people, as exemplified in North America by recent actions of the students and labor movement in Quebec, the Zapatista movement in Mexico, and the Idle No More movement in the United States and Canada. The successes of these actions owe to their genuinely democratic decision-making practices, preparing their participants, in our view, for the green social democratic alternative to prevailing capitalism.

Now, returning to our list of actions that can be undertaken to bring green social democracy closer to fruition:

4. Free the economy and society from the grips of the military-industrial and security-imprisonment complexes

Inseparable from Wall Street is its kissing cousin, the global military-industrial security-imprisonment complex. As Wall Street is brought under public control, its cousin must also be turned to new roles. A just, sustainable world is incompatible with the continuing world dominance of Wall Street and its military-industrial security-imprisonment complex. For greater understanding of the destructive role of the military-industrial security-imprisonment complex and inspiration in the struggle for human rights and against all forms of oppression, we recommend becoming acquainted with the writing and example of Angela Davis to all who have not already done so, beginning with Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement (Angela Y. Davis, Haymarket Books, 2016).

Department of Peace and Human Solidarity. There is an alternative to an economy and society dominated by war and preparations for war with their attendant culture of fear, jingoism, xenophobia and violence. It is an economy and society where security is built and maintained by inclusion of all in the common project of a just, sustainable world. The attendant culture is one where the dominant behaviors are human solidarity and mutual aid. In practical terms, each government department of defense and security needs to be re-organized, re-tasked or replaced by a department of peace and human solidarity. 

Conversion of the military-industrial security-imprisonment complex. Industries supplying the instruments of war need to be converted into suppliers of the new technology the world needs to move rapidly towards clean sources of energy and sustainable use of materials. The preparation of soldiers and their deployment should address the needs for humanitarian assistance at home and abroad. In the face of increasing environmental distress, including frequent weather-related emergencies and hazards, this conversion cannot begin too soon. The resources committed to security and imprisonment need to be re-committed to human development and the integration of every person in the dual project of self and social development. 


This website was launched September 1, 2010 in support of a green social democratic alternative to neoliberal capitalist policy and practice. The primary result is a work by Charles and Karen McFadden of seven chapters, grouped under the title, Towards a Green Social Democratic Alternative to Capitalism available here in pdf and html formats.

Below under the heading What’s New can be found the most recent materials posted on this website, including opinion pieces, book reviews, articles and selections from the 2017 edition of the main work.  For the interest of new and returning visitors, new materials will be included quarterly.

What's New


Authors' Preface

1.6 The epochal nature of the period we are entering

6.0 The socialism we need against the "socialism" of the 20th century

6.8 Additional concerns about 20th century variants of "socialism"

6.9 The people united!

7.1 Policy alternatives and political movements to advance them


Charles and Karen McFadden, Is revolutionary transformation on the agenda

Charles and Karen McFaddenHumanity on the Brink

Charles and Karen McFaddenMovements of Resistance to Movements for System Change

Charles McFaddenTranslating Green Principles into Education Policy and Practice

Charles and Karen McFadden, The Role of Revolutionaries in the Labor Movement


Charles and Karen McFadden, “The Shape of Water” as an Antidote to the Age of Trump 

Charles McFadden, Decolonizing the U.S. & Canada: The People United for a More Just Sustainable Future

Karen and Charles McFaddenCan emergent early 21st century neo-fascism be defeated without coming to grips with late 20th century restructuring of capitalism into a global system

Karen and Charles McFaddenA Dominant Capitalism or a Sustainable Environment? Why we can't have both.


William I. RobinsonThe Crisis of Global Capitalism and Trump's March to War

William I. RobinsonTrumpism, 21st Century Fascism, and the Dictatorship of the Transnational Capitalist Class


George HewisonWINNIPEG 1919 & THE COLD WAR

George HewisonArt Manuel - "Unsettling Canada

George HewisonThe NDP and LEAP


Albert Einstein, David Swanson, Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, William I. Robinson, and others Selected articles for Winter 2018



1.7 The dynamics of capitalism as a system and the limits of single issue reforms

2.11 The economy in transition towards a new deal for labor and the community

3.1 The challenge of a moribund economic system

3.7 Public banking: A cornerstone of a green social democracy

4.7 Economics and culture

6.5 Using the non-market economy as an opportunity to begin moving beyond capitalism


1.6 The epochal nature of the period we are entering

2.0 Theoretical Perspective: Defining Green Social Democracy

2.5. Socialism and green social democracy in historical materialist theory

4.3 Culture in historical perspective

5.1 Contrasting a green social democratic world with the currently prevailing, but challenged neo-liberal one

6.2 Socialism and capitalism as coexisting social systems


2.11 The economy in transition towards a new deal for labor and the community

5.7 Defeating neo-liberal capitalism: The role of social movements

7.3 Justice: Creating a just society, based on the right of all to a dignified, secure existence

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) applies to all work posted on this website except that which appears with authors whose last name is other than McFadden, in which case standard copyright should be assumed to apply.