Strict limits of private capital and ownership accumulation in all areas of society:
The individual possibility of accumulating unlimited capital and power (social influence) is jointly responsible not only for a one-sided polarisation of the distribution of income, but in particular for the socially explosive imbalance as regards quality of life (and personal fulfilment) between different classes of society – at both the domestic and the global levels. The fact that a few people, simply by virtue of having accumulated personal wealth, have the economic power and possibility to grant thousands, and in many cases even millions, of human beings a better life, but fail to do in other words do not share/distribute their wealth, is neither socially nor psychologically acceptable and leads to social unrest and potentially to social conflict. Under materialistic capitalism, the individual accumulation of capital is often synonymous with the accumulation of power. Given the fabric of present-day society, the accumulation of capital and of power – where political influence mostly rests on both – are preconditions for exerting direct influence, especially in terms of economy and social ideology, over large sectors of society. The accumulation of capital and power influences definitions of values, consumer behaviour and social conduct in equal measure.
Thus it is crucial in the medium term to place limits on the scope for unlimited individual accumulation of capital and power, or to ensure that such accumulation becomes obsolete. Limits on individual influence and accumulation must be set (and monitored) in all key social domains (information, communication, education, culture, science, research, health, housing, social security, basic diet, drinking water, natural resources, the genome, energy, mass transportation, the judicial system, police, the military). By the gradually transferring of all these social sectors into the commons (public domain) privatization would become impossible (and revoked). These society shaping domains would thereby be guided exclusively by the people/sovereign society. Only by doing so it would become possible, for instance, to dismantle the weapons industry or to prevent influence of private companies on press and media.
Thus it is much less a matter of setting general limits to the amassing of wealth/power by individuals than of establishing limits of (possible) personal (individual) access to the exercise of influence over domains which are pivotal for the equilibrium of society as a whole.
As regards political offices, these cannot be reconciled with the exercise of functions in the private sector, so that, once a higher political office has been accepted, the individual in question must give up his or her private commercial activities…