From the November 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard
Many organisations (including the United Nations, Oxfam and Christian Aid) know the world has the resources for all humanity to live comfortably.
The question therefore comes to mind—why isn't the whole of humanity living comfortably?
The worldwide organisation of society will not allow human needs to be met. “Needs" are measured by the “market”. You can have anything you want, from baked beans to human beings, as long as you can afford to pay for it. We all know that what we want and need and what we can afford are not necessarily the same thing.
Supporters of the market would defend it by saying “the market system rewards hard work and enterprise". Following this “logic" means coming up with the ridiculous conclusion that because of what they are paid some people can work a hundred times harder than a nurse or an ambulance driver.
Surely the very fact that present society has the capacity for everyone to live comfortably but won’t allow this to happen is in itself proof that a new society is needed?
Those who argue against “market forces” in the NHS should consider being against market forces in all areas of life.
Those who do not want to pay the poll tax but will pay (however grudgingly) for everything else should consider the idea that we should not have to pay for anything, i.e. that we should organise society to provide all goods and services free for all.
Those opposed to the obscenity and insanity of millions starving while food is stored and destroyed should also consider the case for producing goods and services for needs instead of the current "pay or do without” and "profit before need” society.
Those who believe there is basically nothing wrong with the money system should ask themselves, doesn't the very existence of thousands of reform groups and charities tell you otherwise?
The society of mansions and cardboard boxes isn't the only way to live. You owe it to yourself to find out about the alternative.