In an era of remarkable wealth idolatry, Tom Malleson investigates the ethical justifications of wealth inequality, taking the radical position that we should abolish the billionaires. Stark inequality is a problem the world over, but it has been worsening over the past thirty years, particularly in rich, economically developed countries. To acquire the same amount of wealth as Elon Musk, the average American worker would have to work for more than four and a half million years. Is this inequality morally acceptable and is it feasible to actually reduce inequality in the real world? In Against Inequality, Tom Malleson makes the case for rejecting meritocracy, presenting a strong defense against the claim that individuals "deserve" their wealth. Malleson argues that people, especially rich people, do not morally deserve the bulk of their income because it does not, by and large, come from anything the specific individual does, but is largely due to the vast understructure of other people's labor, in addition to their lucky possession of bodily talents and efforts. Furthermore, the book brings to light extensive historical and comparative evidence to show that raising taxes on both income and wealth is practically feasible and that the costs of doing so are far outweighed by the truly enormous benefits that such taxes could bring in terms of environmental sustainability, democratic equality, equal opportunity, and reduced racism and xenophobia. Unlike previous books on inequality, Against Inequality focuses on the superrich, arguing that they have far too much: a world with billionaires alonside severe deprivation is a world without justice. Malleson's argument is not that billionaires are individually evil, but that a society that allows the existence of the superrich is structurally immoral. In an era of remarkable wealth idolatry, Against Inequality takes the radical position that we should abolish the billionaires.

These days, it is easy to be cynical about democracy. Even though there are more democratic societies now (119 and counting) than ever before, skeptics can point to low turnouts in national elections, the degree to which money corrupts the process, and the difficulties of mass participation in complex systems as just a few reasons the system is flawed. The Occupy movement in 2011 proved that there is an emphatic dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, particularly with the economy, but, ultimately, it failed to produce any coherent vision for social change. So what should progressives be working toward? What should the economic vision be for the 21st century? After Occupy boldly argues that democracy should not just be a feature of political institutions, but of economic institutions as well. In fact, despite the importance of the economy in democratic societies, there is very little about it that is democratic. Questioning whether the lack of democracy in the economy might be unjust, Tom Malleson scrutinizes workplaces, the market, and financial and investment institutions to consider the pros and cons of democratizing each. He considers examples of successful efforts toward economic democracy enacted across the globe, from worker cooperatives in Spain to credit unions and participatory budgeting measures in Brazil and questions the feasibility of expanding each. The book offers the first comprehensive and radical vision for democracy in the economy, but it is far from utopian. Ultimately, After Occupy offers possibility, demonstrating in a remarkably tangible way that when political democracy evolves to include economic democracy, our societies will have a chance of meaningful equality for all.

In an era of remarkable wealth idolatry, Tom Malleson investigates the ethical justifications of wealth inequality, taking the radical position that we should abolish the billionaires. Stark inequality is a problem the world over, but it has been worsening over the past thirty years, particularly in rich, economically developed countries. To acquire the same amount of wealth as Elon Musk, the average American worker would have to work for more than four and a half million years. Is this inequality morally acceptable and is it feasible to actually reduce inequality in the real world? In Against Inequality, Tom Malleson makes the case for rejecting meritocracy, presenting a strong defense against the claim that individuals "deserve" their wealth. Malleson argues that people, especially rich people, do not morally deserve the bulk of their income because it does not, by and large, come from anything the specific individual does, but is largely due to the vast understructure of other people's labor, in addition to their lucky possession of bodily talents and efforts. Furthermore, the book brings to light extensive historical and comparative evidence to show that raising taxes on both income and wealth is practically feasible and that the costs of doing so are far outweighed by the truly enormous benefits that such taxes could bring in terms of environmental sustainability, democratic equality, equal opportunity, and reduced racism and xenophobia. Unlike previous books on inequality, Against Inequality focuses on the superrich, arguing that they have far too much: a world with billionaires alonside severe deprivation is a world without justice. Malleson's argument is not that billionaires are individually evil, but that a society that allows the existence of the superrich is structurally immoral. In an era of remarkable wealth idolatry, Against Inequality takes the radical position that we should abolish the billionaires.

An innovative view of how everyone doing part-time work and part-time caregiving would promote flourishing families, free time, equality, and the true value of care. The way that Western countries approach work and care for others is fundamentally dysfunctional. The amount of time spent at work places unsustainable stress on families, particularly in the face of rising inequality, while those who perform care are underpaid and their labor undervalued. In Part-Time for All, Jennifer Nedelsky and Tom Malleson propose a plan to radically restructure both work and care. As such, they offer a solution to four pressing problems: the inequality of caregivers; family stress from competing demands of work and care; chronic time scarcity; and policymakers who are ignorant about the care that life requires—the care/policy divide. Nedelsky and Malleson argue that no capable adult should do paid work for more than 30 hours per week, so that they can contribute substantial amounts of time to unpaid care for family, friends, or other "communities of care." While the authors focus primarily on human-to-human care, they also include care for the earth as a vital part of this shift. All of the elements of Nedelsky and Malleson's proposal already exist piecemeal in various countries. What is needed is to integrate the key reforms and scale them up. The result is an actionable plan to motivate widespread take-up of part-time work and part-time care. Highlighting how these new norms can create synergies of institutional transformation while fostering a cultural shift in the value of care and work, this "care manifesto" identifies the deep changes that are needed and lays out a feasible path forward.

Although contemporary Western societies refer to themselves as "democratic," the bulk of the population spend much of their lives in workplaces that are severely undemocratic, even tyrannical. Gigantic corporations such as Amazon, Meta, Exxon, and Walmart are now among the richest and most powerful institutions in the world yet accountable to no one but a limited number of shareholders. The undemocratic nature of conventional firms generates profound problems across society, including domination at work, environmental destruction, and spiralling inequality. Against this backdrop, Isabelle Ferreras proposes a radical but realistic solution to democratizing the private firm. She suggests that all large firms should be bicamerally governed, with a chamber of worker representatives sharing equal governance power with the standard Board representing owners. In response to this proposal, twelve leading experts on corporate behavior from multiple disciplines consider its attractiveness, viability, and achievability as a "real utopian" proposal to strengthen democracy in our time.

These days, it is easy to be cynical about democracy. Even though there are more democratic societies now (119 and counting) than ever before, skeptics can point to low turnouts in national elections, the degree to which money corrupts the process, and the difficulties of mass participation in complex systems as just a few reasons why the system is flawed. The Occupy movement in 2011 proved that there is an emphatic dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, particularly with the economy, but, ultimately, it failed to produce any coherent vision for social change. So what should progressives be working toward? What should the economic vision be for the 21st century? After Occupy boldly argues that democracy should not just be a feature of political institutions, but of economic institutions as well. In fact, despite the importance of the economy in democratic societies, there is very little about it that is democratic. Questioning whether the lack of democracy in the economy might be unjust, Tom Malleson scrutinizes workplaces, the market, and financial and investment institutions to consider the pros and cons of democratizing each. He considers examples of successful efforts toward economic democracy enacted across the globe, from worker cooperatives in Spain to credit unions and participatory budgeting measures in Brazil and questions the feasibility of expanding each. The book offers the first comprehensive and radical vision for democracy in the economy, but it is far from utopian. Ultimately, After Occupy offers possibility, demonstrating in a remarkably tangible way that when political democracy evolves to include economic democracy, our societies will have a chance of meaningful equality for all.

In June 2010 activists opposing the G20 meeting held in Toronto were greeted with arbitrary state violence on a scale never before seen in Canada. "Whose Streets?" is a combination of testimonials from the front lines and analyses of the broader context, an account that both reflects critically on what occurred in Toronto and looks ahead to further building our capacityfor resistance.
Featuring reflections from activists who helped organize the mobilizations, demonstrators andpassersby who were arbitrarily arrested and detained, and scholars committed to the theory and practice of confronting neoliberal capitalism, the collection balances critical perspective with on-the-street intensity. It offers vital insight for activists on how local organizing and global activism can come together.