Author: Aleksandar

Equality

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

Is there an Ethical Basis for human equality or should the rule of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest prevail?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Equality is a very wide term. The people should have equal rights, but they do not have equal skills nor needs and they have not equally contributed to creating values in society. Therefore, a compromise needs to be made. However, I would never agree with the results that lead toward the battle for survival in society.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

Like equality, survival is a broad term also. More than just life and death of an individual, it comprises; corporations, organizations, social groups, social structures, political structures, and entire species. Is excellence and long-term survivability achieved through the struggle for the survival of these things (listed above) or through some type of group oversight that believes they know what excellence is.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

It’s hard to answer your question because the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I think it is more important to present what will be than what was. When the system I have proposed becomes accepted somewhere, the people will easily recognise what excellence is. Each man will be guaranteed with human and civil rights. Also each man will receive an income from the day of birth up to the day of death dependant on values of his present and past work. The income will always be high enough to ensure existence. Also, each man will receive medical insurance and free education. Each man will have an equal chance to get work at any work place he wishes. Each man will be able to protect his interests everywhere he wishes, by himself. As you see, I am talking about natural human beings. Everything else you mentioned will depend on the needs of those human beings. If something is needed, that will survive, otherwise it will not. In the end, I do not expect the struggle for survival anywhere. That is mostly because there would not exist a division between privileged and unprivileged people. I expect cooperation at all levels of human relationships.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

How does limited resources and human greed figure into this. I believe we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, but the resources needed to allow all individuals to self actualize would be enormous, possibly more than the planet has.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

The book is actually about disalienation. It teaches the people to recognize the natural needs and values, and to live in accordance with their nature. When the idea realizes its success the planet Earth will be big enough for all. If you read the book you would find why.

 

Evaluation

Adrian Parker wrote:

There’s something about the “evaluation” process I don’t understand… is it basically that every person would have the right to periodically (say, once a month) transfer a fixed amount of money (say, one dollar) from any one person of the society to another, excluding himself? If I am correct so far, wouldn’t everyone under this system merely transfer money from people they don’t know (i.e. public figures) to people they do know (i.e. their families and friends)? What would stop people from ganging up against each other in a mad effort to vote themselves as much money as they can?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

You may exchange a positive evaluation with your wife and earn let’s say five dollars which would be, for example, the total power of evaluation. I believe you would agree with me that is not a big deal. You may find more appropriate to award somebody with that money who, in your opinion, deserves it. On the other hand, making agreements with somebody not to exchange bad evaluations does not make sense because you would never know who gives the evaluation to you.

If you receive 100 negative evaluations that will tell you that you are doing something significantly wrong to other people. Also you would have to pay, for example, 100 dollars for receiving those bad evaluations and that will force you to change your behaviour and satisfy other people. On the other hand, an award with such money would confirm your positive orientation and bring benefits. Average people would probably not get any evaluation in most cases, only significantly positive and negative people will. The implementation of such a simple system would in a short period of time bring huge benefits to society.

Adrian Parker wrote:

You are discounting the tendency of humans to stick together. If an extended family of about 20 members chooses to pool their evaluation powers, that means they can take $100 away from anyone each month (assuming $5 month).

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Why would somebody listen to another person whom he has to evaluate? The system encourages individuality so that each person would be more than willing to evaluate the person who makes the best and worst things to him/her and would not let anybody tell them what to do. Ask yourself, would you rather give a bad evaluation to somebody you are asked to give, or to your bad boss, or to a salesperson who sold you spoiled food, or to a politician who lied to you? I do not have any doubt in the result. However, I have to admit that a non-ethical evaluation is possible, but an individual evaluation will not have large influences on the evaluated people. If a non-ethical person tries to persuade other people into a conspiracy against somebody he might easily be punished by the bad evaluations from non-persuaded people.

A non-ethical person will certainly make a lot of mistakes so that he would receive negative evaluations from other individuals and that would force him to learn ethical behaviour. Certainly, the evaluations will help the society reach greater benefits. However, in order to eliminate any suspicion of society towards the evaluation we may try it for example with awards and punishments with only one cent or even without any money charge to show people how it works. I am positive it will be a huge contribution to the development of society.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Considering the problems I find it very understandable that no larger community wants to adopt this system until they’ve got hard data that it works. How about, instead of waiting for someone to try this system “somewhere in the world”, doing it yourself? You said that 3 people is enough to make it work, then why not test it with your family at first? Or in a group of likeminded friends? How does that sound?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

The proposed system is supposed to completely replace the existing one. It is much simpler than the existing one but it is still very complex. It requires teams of experts and scientists to research and tune the system, and create numerous scenarios about all kinds of problems (including your complaints) before any implementation. I cannot do it alone.

After that, three people may start testing the system but the result will not be spectacular when only a few people are involved. Hundreds or thousands will show a much better result. Especially, it will be useless testing the system inside my family because we already solve our problems in the best possible way through discussions and we do not charge each other for anything.

Adrian Parker wrote:

This system seems to be a hindrance to the freedom of speech. A public figure is likely to get more evaluation than unknowns, and perhaps many people will rather not take the risk of getting enormous negative evaluation before writing an opinion to the local bulletin board, or publishing a book. Do you think Salman Rushdie would have dared to write his novels if he knew he’d be paying for it the rest of his life (when fundamentalists keep giving him negative evaluations)? Not to mention that in a smaller scale, everyone will hide all the negative feelings or opinions in fear of “looking bad”, this would be a very superficial community.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Salman Rushdie would not dare to offend the Muslim religion in the name of free speech because the freedom of offence will not exist. In the system I have proposed he would pay a huge price.

We are that much in love with ourselves that we believe our way of living is the best possible in the whole world, which is certainly not true. Such an orientation, in fact, says more that we are very concerned about our way of living but cannot face it. We try to raise ourselves by attacking other ideologies and religions. But that does not work this way; it only increases antagonism and conflicts. The only right way in fighting battles with other ideologies lies in finding a better way of living for us ourselves. When we succeed, our inner satisfaction and harmony inside our society would certainly attract other people to join our values and the world would become a much better place to be. That is the only right way. My system tries to do exactly that. When we find a natural way of living all ideologies and religions would not be very important any more. We will simply live everything what is acceptable in them.

As long as people respect other people they do not need to hide anything and especially not how they “look like”. The system of evaluation will be teaching people to respect others and that is one of the main preconditions to achieve a better future of society. Besides, the whole purpose of the system I have proposed is to overthrow a superficial community and to build a natural one.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Would you have been willing to publish your book and make this website if you knew that you might get several hundreds of dollars of penalties from people who don’t like your ideas?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake just because he refused to recant his beliefs. The system I have proposed offers economic and political stability, optimal satisfaction of people’s needs, absence of crisis, war or any kind of destruction. It offers love, peace, joy, and harmony to the people. Not one other system in the world has been serious in offering such things. On top of it all, no one will burn me at stake for it :-). I would certainly be persistent without matter of any possible bad evaluations I might receive from some people. I believe I would receive much more positive evaluations from the people who enjoy life in the new system.

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Aleksandar, Adrain Parker is right. People are of a herd mentality. People do stick together. Families, clans, whatever you want to call it. Even friends have formed fraternities over the years. Just how do you think cartels came about? Wasn’t it packs of greedy individuals with the same sinister plan? That plan was not to give you an honest evaluation, but to try to shaft you out of anything they could. Even family member will team up and fight with other family members. Just watch when there is some monetary gain to be made from some deceased’s last will and testament. Then watch all of those honest evaluations you are talking about. The same can hold true for promotions. Better refine this idea, it won’t float. JRL

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Today we have a pretty much closed society. People do not have much choices and that is the reason they often stick together even when the issue is not ethical. The system I have proposed will eliminate privileges and that will bring freedom and unlimited choices to every individual. Nothing will be same as today. In the future, the people will also “stick together” but that would include only normal social interests. Others would have to respect their needs. But if the group starts acting non-ethically it will destroy itself. First, a non-ethical relation towards one member of society would result with his leaving the group and then a non-ethical evaluation will break up the group itself. The rest of the answer is already written in this thread here.

 

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Groups have stuck together that are not ethical. The federal reserve comes to mind. It has been operating since 1913, and has taken the American tax payer to the cleaners for all of these decades. Congress has the power to change this, but is in the pockets of the fed. Now you tell me how a group with so much power is going to destroy itself, before it destroys the wealth and livelihood of the American people? No sir, You are obviously forgetting to look at who has the power. Just the fact that the general populace is apathetic, keeps the nasty groups in power, and strengthens that power grip they have on us. Your theory about the ethical weeding out the bad, is just a dream in the real world. Not enough people will stand up for their rights, let alone other’s rights. Try again Alek, but let’s be realistic. JRL

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

I have described the group with so much power you are talking about here. It will be overthrown by a stronger, smarter, more productive and profitable group. I have defined it in Work competition, Democracy or Anarchy and in the whole book.

Alienation

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Alienation? Alienation from what? From others? Try the fundamental social dichotomy between an individual and a member of society within every single human being. You are talking about abstraction, not alienation.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well, there is a decline from Marx here. I created my own theory of alienation and that would be: alienation is a deviation of perception of an objective reality. In short, subjectivism creates alienation. I expect attacks here but I will survive. However, my idea is to solve fundamental dialectical dichotomies between individuals and society and much more. That is what this book is about.

 

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

How much do you know about dialectics to embark on a reconciliation crusade? While you are at it, could you also reconcile ying and yung, please?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

My intention is to bring the people closer to their nature, which is pretty much unique for humankind. That would be the so called process of disalienation. When it succeeds, all ideologies around the world would not matter much.

 

Work Competition

Fred Chittenden wrote:

Working privileges are best set by private agreement between worker and employer with some basic guidelines for civility in the process. In general, the more centralized this process is, the less productive and response is the resulting workforce. And visa versa.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Free market we recognise so far has been giving the highest production but also it gave some limitations and those were not rational productions, not stable productions, not fair distributions of benefits, and crisis. A centralized process of production mostly solves such problems. Yes, in general, the more centralized processes have given a less productive environment. But in the future, that will change. Thanks to the development of computer technology, the central managing of huge companies becomes easier then before and as a result, huge corporations are more productive than small ones and grow. However, the huge international corporations are still fully incapable of solving social problems such as unemployment and fair distribution of benefits that come from work so that social crisis are going to grow as well. Therefore, in order to solve this problem I propose much more market than capitalism can afford. Under the public property I offer open work competition all the time where each job should go to the worker who proposes higher productivity, lower price for the present work and higher responsibility for doing it. That is a huge challenge to society but also this is the future of production. In order to diminish employment tensions the management will have to establish the same amount of work posts as there are workers available. Such an economy will finally solve problems of today’s production.

This kind of production will be much better and profitable than the production of private enterprises and therefore, private enterprises will lose competition on the free market. In order to escape from losses, the owners of private enterprises will join the public ownership of the means of production. They will receive the “humanistic” shares proportionally to the values of surrendered ownerships and that will proportionally raise their income. Therefore, capitalists may find interest in selling their enterprises to society. If not, nobody will try to take their property from them.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

You are talking about centralized planning, not just individual planning?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Production will be planned by producers the same way the enterprises plan their production today. For the best result, they may involve consumers to order their consumption. That would be the democratically planned economy – the best and safest economy possible. So that centralized planning will be just a sum of all individual planning.

Yes of course I believe that centralized planning is the best. It is more rational and secure than the planning of independent enterprises. Big businesses know that and that is the reason they merge. To avoid poor productivity of the Soviet model for example, we need to implement the market competition on a lower level, on the level of work places. Best worker at every work place at any time would make the highest possible productivity (13 pages here from my book would explain it).

As a result, consumers would have less chances to choose between similar type of goods or services because the competition between similar products and services will diminish. That would bring more rationality to the process of production. The highest level of quality and satisfaction of the consumer’s needs will be enforced by the consumers evaluation of products and services. Do you remember democratic anarchy (plus minus one dollar or whatever)?

This is the future of everything.

Adrian Parker wrote:

How can a “socialist company” allocate resources any more efficiently than a capitalist one? Surely there is a big incentive for capitalist companies to also get the “best man for the job”, and I don’t see any reason why a socialist system could do this any more wisely than capitalists (after all, if a capitalist company doesn’t allocate resources well, it cannot compete with those companies that do, so eventually there will be capitalist companies that are able to put the best man for each job just as well as any “socialists company”).

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Actually I have called it a humanist company. It sounded weird at the beginning but I got used to it.

The capitalist company would not be able to allocate the human resources as well as the humanistic one. For example, in the capitalist company the worker who might produce 5% more than the existing worker could not get the job. He cannot even apply for the position without an announcement. The owner of the company could not easily accept his offer because the system does not provide any warranties for the proposed productivity. The existing laws prevent owners from firing the existing worker in order to hire more productive ones even when he wishes it. I am talking about every work place at any time.

The humanist company can easily provide all of that and therefore it will be more productive. In a society of million workers for instance, each of them will be able to compete for every job at every work post. Logic said at least one of them will perform the work productivity better than the worker in the capitalist company where such competitive opportunity could not exist.

Secondly, all the workers will be the humanistic shareholders of the humanist company and therefore, they would be certainly much more concerned and responsible for the work than the workers in the capitalist company. As a result, the humanist company will be much more productive and the capitalist one will have to withdraw. We may assume that the capitalist companies would try hard to find an escape by forming the same work organisation as the public ones but they would never be able to allow workers to choose their responsibilities and salaries so that they would have to go to history.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Why hasn’t anyone ever established a humanist company, if it is superior to current capitalist companies? Is a change in laws needed, for example give employers the power to fire anyone they think is not efficient enough for the job?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

First of all, in the new system a fire-hire relationship will not exist any more. The new production relationships will be based on the work competition. Better production bid will get the job anytime. If the worker does not realize the proposed production he is going to pay the responsibility with his humanistic shares. How that would work? If I, for example, would like to get the job belonging to some other worker, I would have to offer a higher productivity or lower price of present work for the desired work post. Then, the existing worker who works at the work post I would like to take, would have two choices: first, to accept my production bid what will allow him to continue holding his work position; or second, the responsibility for the new requirements of the position will force him to leave. If he leaves he would continue to receive an income, which would be lower each month he does not work. However, the system can easily create a needed number of work places so that it will not be hard for anybody to get a new job.

I have described the basis of the work division in 13 pages of the book. The idea is very complex and still requires a lot of research and tuning. I am positive at the end, the work division will work very simply and smoothly. Of course, the new law about work would have to be accepted by the consensus of political parties and directly by the referendum of the people before the implementation of the work competition. Besides, the system requires also a humanistic ownership of the means of production (something similar to the public ownership) which is not a very popular idea today. The system requires a developed IT technology, which happened recently. Somebody had to invite the humanist company and not too many offers have been seen. Not to mention powerful people will lose many privileges and they do not like it. Those are the reasons nobody has established a humanist company yet.

Democratic Anarchy

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

You mention an automatic advantage to the positively assessed. Who pays it and who decides how much?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

That is one of the most important parts of the system I have proposed and I am very proud of inventing it. I will present democratic anarchy in a very simple sample. Let the people accept my idea and decide to give every man the right to evaluate other people every month. Let a positive evaluation give a total of one dollar (or whatever) to the evaluated person. And vice versa, let a negative evaluation take a total of one dollar (or whatever) from the evaluated person. The evaluation will be anonymous and money will be taken and added from the account of each evaluated man automatically. That right would make every man try to please every other man as much as they can and prevent every man from doing something other people do not like. This measure will affect every man, his neighbour, teacher, chief, co-worker, friend, and of course the government. Such a government will try very hard not to disappoint its people. Such a simple measure will bring huge benefits to society.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Evaluation by spending money seems much better and efficient to me. No need for any complex super-social structures or computers.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

You think the market is better? I believe it is not even as close to good as the evaluation. Contrary to the system I have proposed, the market does not give a stable production and therefore cannot produce a stable society. The system of evaluation is socially just because it gives an equal right to each man and market does not. Market does not have any influence in the human relationships out of purchasing commodities. For example, if your neighbour produces noise (this is a production too) at night the market cannot help you anyhow. These kinds of issues may be unlimited. Sometimes your boss may be a real jerk and the market cannot help you cheer him up. All these issues will be perfectly solved with the system of evaluation

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Do not underestimate desire to take somebody higher down. I do not trust good intentions of individuals, but when millions of them considered, stupidity and malice is balanced out. Your system does not have such protection because it is unnatural, super-imposed.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well I think that the system I have proposed is the most natural one ever created. The system will disalienate the society and that means the people will respect other people. Also, the work market will make all work positions equally desired. That will diminish a possibility and need of taking “somebody higher down” what ever it means to you.

Yes, every knee-jerk will have the right to take one dollar from anyone which would not be a big deal. Those kinds of people would hardly unite to make a damage to society and would have to pay much more attention on their behaviour than on the misevaluations. A bad person may easily lose 100 dollars or more monthly.

Let’s say the president of a country makes a decision the people extremely do not like. He may receive monthly for example 1,000,000 negative evaluations from the people and as a result he would lose one million dollars monthly. Well, the big punishments and awards might be reduced by some kind of functions but anyway, the evaluations would make the president of a country really responsible to the people. A bad president in my system would run from his position so fast that no one would even remember he was the president. Something similar would happened to any professional, for example to a producer of socks. The producer will have to make socks consumers like. That will be a real responsibility. That will eliminate privileges. That will affect everyone everywhere and that will make a healthy society.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

This is a horrible idea. It will ensure that nobody decent will ever get into politics. Only those that can afford loosing such amounts of money (because they will find ways to recover those losses) will. Such a system will open flood doors for corruption.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

It seems to me that you would like to stop the development of society and enforce authoritarian rules forever. There will not be any chance for corruption in the system I have proposed because there will not be privileged people. Managers and politicians will be pretty much exposed to the evaluation. Logic says that a non decent person will be more likely to avoid politics or managing of an economy and a decent one will try hard not to disappoint the people. And if that kind of evaluation would be unacceptable to the people we may change the evaluation with “plus minus one dollar” to the evaluation with “plus minus one cent”. Now we have a reasonable beginning for somebody who is afraid of the evaluation. No more big harm would be made so let’s see who is right and who is wrong.

Voting Power

Ron Peterson wrote:

I don’t see how A. Sarovic is solving a problem, it seems to meet the desires of the capitalist exactly, each person should get to vote in proportion to their wealth. If you measure a person’s contribution by the number of hours he has worked in his life, a 40 year old would have twice the voting power of a 30 year old. Ron

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

First, I believe that an equal voting right is probably an ideal we should long. But, at this moment, it is absolutely unacceptable to the powerful people around the world because an equal voting power in real democracy may easily decide to take the power from the most powerful people. The point is that powerful people has been creating rules in society alone without matter what kind of so called democracy has been established. They get all kinds of benefits from the system and they would rather produce huge destruction then give a really equal voting right to the people. On the other hand, one could find justification in giving more voting rights to the people who contribute more to the development of society. Such a measure may be very stimulative for the productive orientation of society.

In such circumstances, a compromise I offered looks like the best solution. The compromise should be equally acceptable to all the people. We may base voting power on equality as it is today. On top of that, we may give an additional voting power to each man proportionally to the wealth of each man. A total number of life time working hours of workers may be included somehow as well. In addition the value lies in creating new lives (birth of babies), education, also in any contribution of a man that improves the life of society (which is more difficult to determine), etc. The impact of each kind of value to the voting power will be subject of a hard negotiation among political parties. But finally, they may produce the result (by consensus) with which will be easy to calculate the voting power of each man. The final result may be an equal voting power (if for example all agree that the voting power should be given only by one’s existence) up to let’s say an unlimitedly different voting power among the people.

Would the different voting power among the people be unjust? Hardly. If we compare it with what we have today. Today a 17 year old does not have any voting power but an 18 year old does, which decides nothing. My offer makes the system equally acceptable to all. Powerful people will give up from ruling the society but will get decent and recognized voting power and many other benefits such as a high income for example. Others will lose a non-existent equal voting power but will get some real voting power maybe for the first time in the history of mankind. The whole society will benefit in stability, security, and productivity. Is it possible? Similar phenomenons happened when some European kings voluntarily gave up from the absolute power and gave it to parliaments.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

The biggest problem with this is its idealistic notion: we can create some mechanism that will work wonders. Well, who is going to participate in the task of pooling? And finally, who is going to make the final decision? Can you guarantee that such an unnatural exercise will not be a) botched by misjudgements or (likely) b) corrupted from within? Impossible to implement. Specialization in modern world require professional decision makers. In your system, every knee-jerk emotional reaction will have its voice as well.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

In the system I have proposed, the people will choose political parties as they do today. Political parties will prepare the Constitutional Law and few of the most important laws such as the law about decision making in society and about labour. These laws will be made by consensuses of political parties and after that they will have to be accepted on referendum by let’s say 2/3 of total votes and that will be final. I cannot see significant changes here.

Democracy will especially be needed in economy. Every member of society will participate in making decisions about the macroeconomic policy of society. Each voter will actually divide his voting points (the quantity will be equal to the gross income of the individual) for the individual consumption, collective consumption and for the development of production in the possible range determined by the parliament. The sum of all these voting points made by all the voters for each group will determine the amount of money allocated for each group. The number of decisions might be made about the distribution of money for collective consumption as long as that would be in the interest of the people. The people may directly decide about the minimum wage as well. These decisions will be final.

I do not think that any education is necessarily needed for such voting. People will simply, through their living experience, consider what funds will need more money to be allocated in and what less and that is all. These few decision points will manage the whole macroeconomic policy of society and therefore it would simply and extremely efficiently manage the whole society. I cannot see why you think that a direct democracy is impossible to achieve, or why it would be unnatural, or how it might be corrupted? On the contrary, I think such a democracy will make the best choice to society. I guess there would be no need for more democracy than what is described above. All other decisions in society will make leaders and they would be directly responsible for the people.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Consensus implies no disagreements, vs. majority rule. Political parties will have a very hard time coming up with anything based on consensus. When was the last time that a consensus was achieved on anything in a democracy and on public level, not among representatives? So, no consensus.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well, each decision made against the wish of minority on a long run makes damage to society. The damages manifest in all possible kinds of destructions inside society. Will the political parties come to their wisdom after a disaster occurs or will their wisdom be faster? In the worst case, the political parties will wait a couple of years or more and try to find the consensus again. However, somewhere around the world the consensus might be found soon and it would certainly show the world that it is the best choice for humankind and most likely the only good one.

Political parties will prepare all the main decisions by consensus, which means a small party may stop the referendum (It certainly gives an unequal voting power as well). Once the direct democratic practice is established, the people will simply not allow anything less than democracy the same way they would not allow slavery today.

At the end, it comes to my mind that an unequal voting power will be a pretty much formal power. It will rather present how much each individual has contributed to building the values to society than anything else. One man with one vote or with thousands of them cannot significantly change the voting result where millions or billions of votes decide. Real individual power will come from democratic anarchy and there, each man has to have an equal power.

Definition of Notions

Definition of Terms

 

Coefficient of responsibility – represents in the new system an element of the work competition expressed by independent voting of workers by means of a certain value in the range from 0.1 to 10. The higher value forms higher responsibility and provides a stronger work competition of workers for each work post. Higher worker’s responsibility for his own and collective productivity will in the case of the rise of productivity bring higher income and a larger share in the distribution of past labor points. In the case of the fall in production, the greater responsibility will result in more austere sanctions in the form of lower income and take-away of a quantity of past labor points determined by the system.

Coefficient of envisaged productivity – presents the ratio of the envisaged and the existing productivity in any magnitude, such as cash gains on the market, quantity and quality of products or assessment of the success in business activity. The workers proposing coefficients of envisaged productivity higher than 1 (one) forecast the rise in productivity and realize in that connection a higher work competitiveness and greater rights to employment at a desired work post.

Coefficient of realized productivity – shows the ratio of the realized and envisaged productivity in any magnitude, such as the cash profit on the market, quantity and quality of products or assessment of the success in business activity. The workers accomplishing the coefficient of the realized productivity higher than 1 (one) did accomplish the rise in productivity and will accomplish a higher income, and vice versa.

Current work price – presents the value that is inversely proportionate with direct labor value. It is formed by direct voting of each worker in the range from 0.1 to 10. The work realizing a smaller direct value, or a more difficult, more dangerous, dirtier work will require a higher current work price, and will ensure a larger participation in the distribution of collective operating results, and vice versa. The objectivity of the current work price is ensured by the work competition.

Democratic planned economy – advocates the production planning based on directly stated consumption needs of all inhabitants.

Democratic anarchy – represents a new form of social relations where each inhabitant exercises equal legislative, judiciary and executive power in the society. Equality is manifested in the equal right of inhabitants to assess the doer of any activity in the society. Positive assessment needs to somewhat increase the income and quantity of past labor points of the person assessed. Negative assessment needs to sanction the assessed worker by a little decrease in, and take-away of a small quantity of past labor points. When each inhabitant has the right to make assessments freely, regardless of any written rules, such democracy represents anarchy. Democratic anarchy will force each inhabitant in the society to achieve as many conveniences as possible and the least possible number of inconveniences in the society in the broadest sense, which represents a base of a productive orientation of the society.

Direct democracy – is a form of democracy where each inhabitant directly and without any intermediary decides on any issue in the society that concerns his interests. This is feasible to achieve by filling out the internet applications. The statements of majority of inhabitants in the function of their voting power established by the holdings of past labor points need to either ratify or reject the prepared decisions and thus determine the rules of joint activity. The population will directly tailor the macroeconomic policy of a commune by distributing the collective money for the needs of economic development, individual and collective consumption, and all partial forms of distribution. The sum of statements of all inhabitants in the function of their voting power determined by past labor points held would form the framework of the business activity.

Direct value of labor – shows the conveniences and inconveniences that each work form brings directly while lasting. The new system proposes a scale for measuring direct value of the work in the range from 0.1 to 10. Lower direct value will be realized by a less convenient work. Direct value of work is inversely proportionate to current work value. Inconvenient work will require a higher current work price and, accordingly, a higher income, and vice versa. Objectivity of statements will be established in the way that the right to work will first be exercised by a worker who in addition to equal productivity envisages a higher direct value of work, or a worker requiring a lower income.

Free-of-charge consumption – envisages the consumption of the population not directly collected from consumers, but financed from the fund of collective commodity consumption. The population directly determines the quantity of money intended for the collective consumption and its purpose.

Humanism – is a new form of the socio-economic formation in which the man is a basic measure of value. Humanism replaces the political and economic elements of capitalism, and enables further development of the society. Humanism creates compromises that equally suit all members of the society and for this reason all society members accept it equally by their own wills.

Humanistic form of ownership of the means of production – is a form of a shareholding social ownership of the means of production on a certain territory. Each worker participates in collective ownership to the extent to which he has contributed together with his predecessors to the creation of such ownership with certain ethical-social corrections. Participation is defined by past labor points. According to its constitution, the system corresponds to the capitalistic form of shareholding, but incorporates in the ownership all of the inhabitants according to the jointly accepted humanistic criterion, because all inhabitants contributed by their past labor to its creation.

Indirect value of labor – is expressed by the value of the goods produced. A higher indirect value of labor is realized by producers of the commodities having a higher trade value in the society. The trade value of commodities is determined by the price of commodities on the free commodity market. One can say that in such circumstances the price of commodities determines the price of work, or the entire indirect value of labor.

Past Labor Points – show how much each person has contributed to creating value in society. The quantity of past labor points is proportional to the value of the person’s total work contribution and the heritage of his ancestors’ contributions in the creation of joint ownership of the commune. A larger quantity of past labor points will bring a higher income and greater voting power to a man in society. Such profit and decision-making power is something similar to the share system of capitalism but differs from it in certain technical, social and ethical elements.

Past Labor Value – is analyzed only indirectly via the past labor results. Such value is established by past labor points.

Work competition – represents a new form of labor distribution in the system of humanistic form of ownership of the means of production. Each work post in public companies will be occupied by the worker who by his own statement proposes the highest productivity, the highest responsibility and the lowest current work price expressed by coefficients. Such a form of labor distribution advocates the market principles of business activity, but enables transition to democratic planned economy.

Work price – represents a product of the past labor value expressed by a quantity of past labor points, and the current work price of workers. A larger quantity of past labor points and a higher current work price will realize a higher income, and vice versa.

 

Back to Top

Psihologija otuđenja

2.1          Psihologija otuđenja 

 

Čovjek je svjestan ograničenja vlastitog znanja i vlastite nemoći pred prirodom. Nepoznavanje prirode čovjeku donosi osjetilne i emocionalne nepogodnosti. Osjetilne nepogodnosti su proizvod neposrednog bolnog odnosa sa prirodom. Emocionalne nepogodnosti su proizvod misaonog odnosa sa prirodom. Najizrazitije emocionalno stanje je strah koji je posljedica nedovoljnog znanja odnosno nemoći čovjeka da se suprotstavi prirodnim nepogodnostima. Čovjek se oslobađa nepogodnosti u granicama vlastitih mogućnosti.

 

Ukoliko čovjek ne prihvati vlastitu nemoć tamo gdje je objektivno ne može prevladavati, tada formira potrebe veće od vlastite mogućnosti realizacije. Obzirom da su misli slobodne i mogu djelovati neovisno od prirode, čovjek pod pritiskom nepogodnosti uzrokovanih vlastitom nemoći i potrebom da je prevlada, formira subjektivnu ideju o prirodi i zakonitosti kretanja u njoj u obliku koji mu pogoduje. Ukoliko takva subjektivna određenja preskoče prepreke u odnosu sa prirodom, što je moguće jer često nikakva nepogodnost ne postoji u neposrednom odnosu čovjeka i njemu nepoznate prirode, čovjek se oslobađa nepogodne napetosti i prihvaća takva određenja kao stvarna.  

 

Subjektivna vizija čovjeku daje privid moći u prirodi što brzo i lako donosi pogodnosti koje su po svom intenzitetu identične pogodnostima proizašlim stvarnim prevladavanjem čovjekove nemoći u prirodi. Putevi prijenosa stvarnosti i iluzija su lagani i pogodni što ohrabruje čovjeka da u potrazi za većim pogodnostima nalazi izvore u svakom trenutku života. Može se reći da “čovjek koji ne zna”, odnosno nemoćan čovjek tokom svog života u nepoznatoj nadmoćnoj ili nepogodnoj prirodi stvara neograničeni broj određenja prirode, njenih djelova i prirodnih pojava u oblicima koji mu pogoduju. Takva priroda nije više nepoznata jer ju je čovjek “upoznao”, nije više nadmoćna jer ju je čovjek “pobijedio”, nije više strana jer ju je čovjek “prisvojio”. Tako je čovjek svojom subjektivnom vizijom prilagodio prirodu određenjima koja mu pogoduju, međutim takva određenja su otuđena od svoje objek­tivne biti.  

 

Otuđena određenja formiraju u čovjeku otuđenu predodžbu o pogodnostima i nepogodnostima, što stvara otuđeni respekt prema moćima u prirodi, otuđena emotivna stanja, otuđene potrebe, i otuđeno djelovanje. Tako se razvija subjektivna svijest koja stvara otuđeno znanje. Otuđeno znanje je lažno i stoga formira otuđeni način čovjekovog življenja. Otuđeni način života otuđuje čovjeka od svoje prirode i tako se proces razvija.  

 

Može se reći da se čovjek otuđuje od vlastite prirode kada nije u mogućnosti da prihvati ograničenja vlastite prirode. Čovjek koji u većoj mjeri ne može prihvatiti vlastitu nemoć tamo gdje je objektivno ne može prevladati u većoj mjeri se otuđuje od objektivne stvarnosti.  

 

Subjektivnost stvara otuđenje. Međutim, subjektivna vizija uvjek nosi u sebi i objektivna određenja. Apsolutna subjektivnost formirala bi apsolutno otuđenu svijest a čovjek kao nosilac takve svijesti bi izgubio mogućnost egzistencije. Apsolutna objektivnost formirala bi apsolutnu prirodnost što predstavlja ideal čovjekovog življenja. Odnos objektivnosti i subjektivnosti predstavlja odnos prirodnosti i njenog otuđenja.  

 

Otuđeno znanje koje prividno riješava pitanje čovjekove nemoći pred nepoznatom prirodom može naći opravdanje ukoliko u velikoj mjeri sadrži objektivna određenja zakonitosti kretanja prirode. Takvo znanje iako nije istinsko ne mora doći u neposredan konflikt sa prirodnim moćima pa oslobađa čovjeka nepogodne napetosti odnosa sa nepoznatom prirodom. 

 

Otuđeno znanje gubi svoju opravdanost kada skreće čovjeka sa njegovog prirodnog puta. Otuđene potrebe čovjek ne može nikad u potpunosti zadovoljiti jer nikakvo djelovanje ne može zahvatiti prirodu nastanka takvih potreba. Čovjek naprosto ne može prevladati moć prirode.  

 

Kako otuđene potrebe ne mogu ostvariti zadovoljenje one su u pravilu nezasitne. Takvo otuđenje razvija egoistične osobine karaktera a manifestira se u obliku pohlepe, ambicije, zanesenosti, fanatizma u polju čovjekova otuđenog interesa. Otuđene potrebe mogu objektivno biti potpuno nepotrebne čovjekovoj prirodi ali u njegovoj otuđenoj svijesti one formiraju veliku važnost. One tada usmjeravaju čovjeka tako da djeluje suprotno vlastitoj prirodi.  

 

Ukoliko čovjekova otuđena svijest uspije naći prividnu potvrdu svoje otuđene moći tada čovjek razvija viši stupanj subjektivizma koji formira narcisoidnu osobinu karaktera. Narcisoidnost značajno potiskuje i potcjenjuje objektivnu, nepoznatu, neprihvatljivu stvarnost a veliča otuđenu viziju vlastite moći u prirodi što stvara veliku iluziju životnih pogodnosti. Kada čovjek svojom subjektivnom vizijom definira vlastitu moć daleko veću nego što je objektivno može imati, lako nailazi na proturječnost u realnom životu što donosi velike napetosti i nepo­godnosti. Narcisoidne potrebe su objektivno nepotrebne čovjekovoj prirodi ali u njegovoj subjektivnoj svjesti lako postaju uvjet za osiguranje egzistencije. Takav čovjek ulaže veliku energiju u borbi za otuđeni opstanak.  

 

Što je čovjek više otuđen od svoje prirode to u pravilu manje može zadovoljiti svoje potrebe i tako naći opuštanje i pogodnosti. Generalno rečeno, otuđeni čovjek se može prepoznati po tome što je gotovo permanentno pod stresom, on je svakako više nervozan nego opušten, više mrzovoljan nego zadovoljan, depresivan nego radostan bez obzira kakva su njegova djelatna ostvarenja. Čovjekova priroda ne može podnijeti trajnu napetost i nepogodnost i stoga njegov organizam nalazi izlaz u izopačenju vlastite osjetilnosti i emocionalnosti. 

 

Otuđeni čovjek se oslobađa nepogodne napetosti i nalazi prividno opuštanje i pogodnosti u izopačenju vlastite prirode. Kako prirodan čovjek nalazi opuštanje i pogodnosti u ljubavi, u konstruktivnom odnosu prema prirodi, tako otuđeni čovjek nalazi prividne pogodnosti i opuštanje u mržnji i destruktivnom odnosu prema prirodi. Takvom čovjeku destrukcija postaje potreba. Destruktivna napetost koja se tada javlja može u potpunosti onemogućiti čovjekovu sposobnost da uoči objektivne uzroke nepogodnosti.  

 

Ukoliko otuđen čovjek svojom subjektivnošću precjenjuje uvjete u prirodi koji mu donose nepogodnosti, tada nalazi uzroke nemoći u sebi, tada se orijentira destruktivno prema sebi samome. Ovisno o stupnju nemoći, autodestruktivnost poprima obilježja od pasivnosti pred prirodnim silama i tamo gdje čovjek ima moć da prevlada nepogodnost pa do potrebe za samouništenjem. Čovjek ne teži samouništenju zbog objektivne nemoći kao što je siromaštvo ili glad, već samo ukoliko izgubi otuđeni oblik moći u prirodi. Autodestruktivnost čovjek prima kao potrebu bijega od stvarnosti i ona se može razvijati na primjer; od potrebe konzumiranja alkohola pa do potpunog otuđenja svijesti, ili ludila. Takav čovjek može samo tako naći opuštanje od nepogodne napetosti. 

 

Ukoliko otuđen čovjek svojom subjektivnom vizijom potcjenjuje moć prirode, tada može naći izlaz iz nepogodnosti kao i prividno opuštanje od napetosti u destruktivnom odnosu prema prirodi. Nikada čovjek nije toliko destruktivan kao kada je povređena njegova narcisoidnost, njegova lažna ljudska veličina. Destruktivnost se ovisno o stupnju nemoći i nedostatku respekta prema prirodi manifestira u obliku agresije koja se može razvijati do čina uništavanja prirode.  

Čovjek koji živi u skladu sa vlastitom prirodom nemoć prevladava u granicama svojih mogućnosti. Takav čovjek ostvaruje prirodne pogodnosti. Kada se čovjek otuđi od vlastite prirode ne može zadovoljiti svoje potrebe, pa se u njemu javljaju nape­tosti koje ga tjeraju u destrukciju. Otuđeni čovjek živi biološki nepogodan život. 

 

Cijela ova knjiga govori o otuđenju ali šta bi to bilo u jednoj rečenici? Otuđenje je stanje u kojem čovjek ne prepoznaje vrijednosti tamo gdje one stvarno jesu. Otuđen čovjek misli da je vrijednost ono što u stvarnosti to nije. 

 

Čovjek misli kako osjeća, osjeća kako živi a živi kako misli. Obzirom da čovjek upravlja svojim mislima pomoću znanja, obzirom da misli određuju potrebe i tako usmjeravaju djelovanje, čovjek sam snosi odgovornost za ostvarenje vlastitih osjetilnih i emocionalnih stanja. Može se reći da je čovjek ono što misli odnosno ono što zna.  

 

Društvo

 

1.2        Društvo

 

Prirodni zakoni društva

 

Čovjek je po svojoj prirodi slobodna biološka jedinka i istovremeno društveno biće. “Čovjek koji zna” svjestan je da će u većoj mjeri zadovoljiti svoje prirodne potrebe udruživanjem sa drugim čovjekom. “Društvo koje zna” to i postiže. Takvo društvo ostvaruje veću moć u prirodi pa tako i veću mogućnost zadovoljenja prirodnih potreba. Udruživanje ljudi predstavlja zajednicu individuuma sa posebnim i zajedničkim potrebama. Potrebe određuju odnose u društvu.

 

Društveni odnosi ne nastaju slučajno; oni ovise o društvenim uvjetima. Kada podjednaki društveni uvjeti trajno kreiraju identične rezultate, oni se mogu nazvati prirodnim zakonima društva. Ova studija nastoji dokazati da će prirodni zakoni društva uspostaviti dobro društvo. Sada se postavlja pitanje ako nekakva pravila mogu uspostaviti dobro društvo zašto je ono bilo tako deficitarno u povijesti čovječanstva? Odgovor je vrlo jednostavan: Društvo nikada nije definiralo prirodne zakone društva. Ova studija prikazuje prirodne zakone društva i tvrdi da će oni izgraditi neusporedivo bolje društvo nego što je ikada postojalo.

 

Prirodni zakoni društva bi trebali odrediti društveno ponašanje na sličan način kao što zakoni fizike određuju sile u prirodi. Razumijevanje zakona fizike omogućuje ljudima da žive u skladu s fizičkim svijetom. Isto tako će razumijevanje prirodnih zakona društva omogućiti ljudima da žive u skladu koji nije moguće opstruirati. Ova studija ima namjeru da to dokaže.

 

S obzirom da prirodni zakoni društva nikada nisu definirani, ova studija je koristila knjigu “Matematički principi prirodne filozofije” koju je Newton[1] napisao 1687 godine kao referentni model za određivanje prirodnih društvenih zakona. Prihvaćanje prirodnih zakona društva bi trebalo pridonijeti napretku čovječanstva na isti način na koji je Isaac Newton pridonio razvoju fizike.

 

1.   Prirodni zakon društva:  Destruktivni ljudi su nezadovoljni i formiraju destruktivne društvene odnose. Zadovoljni ljudi nisu destruktivni i formiraju konstruktivne društvene odnose.

 

2.   Prirodni zakon društva: Jaki ljudi imaju tendenciju da napadaju slabe, stvarajući represivno društvo. Ljudi jednake moći poštuju i ne pokušavaju dominirati jedni nad drugima, stvarajući tako skladne društvene odnose.

 

3. Prirodni zakon društva:  Društvene privilegije stvaraju nejednaku moć među ljudima, što uzrokuje društvene probleme, dok jednaka ljudska prava daju jednaku društvenu moć ljudima, spriječavajući društvene probleme. Jednaka ljudska prava stvaraju konstruktivne i skladne društvene odnose koji grade zadovoljstvo življenja.

 

Prvi i drugi prirodni zakon društva u osnovi su sami po sebi razumljivi. Oni mogu imati neke iznimke zbog perverzije koja postoji u otuđenom svijetu. Ali jednom kad društvo prepozna prirodne zakone društva, ono bi trebalo ukloniti izopačenost u društvu i uspostaviti konstruktivne i skladne društvene odnose bez iznimaka.

 

Prvi i drugi prirodni zakon doprinose razumijevanju trećeg prirodnog zakona društva, koji je najvažniji u ovoj studiji. Treći zakon nije očigledno rješenje za stvaranje produktivnih društvenih odnosa zadovoljnih ljudi jer jednaka ljudska prava nikada nisu postojala.

 

“Društvo koje zna” će formirati jednaka ljudska prava. Definicija jednakih ljudskih prava bi trebala značiti da svi ljudi imaju jednake mogućnosti u životu. Ono što je pojedincima dopušteno, mora biti dopušteno svima, i obratno; ono što je pojedincima zabranjeno mora biti zabranjeno svima. Ova studija će nastojati dokazati da je uspostava jednakih ljudskih prava jedini uvjet za ostvarenje dobrog društva. Bez jednakih ljudskih prava ne može se formirati dobro društvo.

 

***

 

Čovjek je čovjeku prirodna potreba pa tako i vrijednost. U “društvu koje zna” svaki čovjek ima respekta prema svim članovima društva bez obzira na razlike u stupnju sposobnosti ili moći. U takvom društvu svaki čovjek ima pravo da participira u odlučivanju o pravilima zajedničkog djelovanja. Na taj način, skup svih individualnih potreba formira optimalne zajedničke potrebe društva koje određuju pravila društvenog odnošenja.

 

Jednaka ljudska prava zahtijevaju i obaveze pojedinca. Prava utvrđuju čovjekove slobode, dok ih obaveze umanjuju jer je čovjek prisiljen da se odnosi prema prirodi i društvu onako kako to odgovara društvu u cjelini. “Društvo koje zna” uspostavlja pravila zajedničkog djelovanja na taj način da u što većoj mjeri smanji individualne nepogodnosti i poveća zajedničke pogodnosti društva. Takva pravila u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri odgovaraju svim članovima društva.

 

Društvo ima istovjetne reakcije u odnosu sa prirodom kao i čovjek. “Društvo koje zna” formira potrebe u skladu sa vlastitom prirodom u granicama prirodne moći realizacije i tako zadovoljava svoje potrebe i ostvaruje pogodnosti.

 

Može se reći da čovjek tokom svog života prolazi putevima razvoja društva. Dijete nema nikakvo znanje ni sposobnost da zadovolji svoje prirodne potrebe. Roditelji koji znaju živjeti u skladu sa vlastitom prirodom su zadovoljni i kao takvi razvijaju ljubav prema djeci. Oni preuzimaju aktivnu brigu oko zadovoljenja prirodnih dječih potreba. Takav odnos donosi toplinu i radost što je uvjet prosperiteta djeteta pa tako i društva. Osobe koje nisu prikraćene u mladosti kasnije postaju zdravi nosioci društva.

 

“Čovjek koji zna” donosi pogodnosti sebi i društvu u cjelini i zato “društvo koje zna” ima interes da svakog člana upozna sa fondom znanja koje posjeduje. “Društvo koje zna” formira objektivno saznanje o zakonitostima kretanja u prirodi i obrazuje mlade članove o pravima, dužnostima i odgovornostima koje podnosi za svoje postojanje u društvu i prirodi. Mladi koji vide aktivne i zadovoljne odrasle članove “društva koje zna” formiraju vjeru u pogodnu budućnost i zato prihvaćaju prava, dužnosti i odgovornost zajednice sa zadovoljstvom. “Društvo koje zna” formira obrazovanje koje slijedi interes učenika i društva jer na taj način čin obrazovanja u svom trajanju zadovoljava potrebe učenika i donosi pogodnosti društvu u cjelini.

Društvo zadovoljava svoje potrebe radom. “Društvo koje zna” zajedničkim dogovorom utvrđuje potrebe a zatim zajedničkim radom zadovoljava potrebe i tako ostvaruje pogodnosti. “U društvu koje zna” svaki radnik ima ravnopravan pristup do svakog radnog mjesta a posao dobija najproduktivniji zainteresirani radnik. Tako društvo  ostvaruje najveću produktivnost pa tako i najveću vrijednost u proizvodnji, dok sloboda u izboru radnog mjesta omogućava radu da postane vrijednost za sebe.

“Društvo koje zna” raspoređuje rad i rezultate rada među radnicima tako da formiraju ujednačene pogodnosti. Tako se formira  ujednačeni interes radnika prema obavljanju svih poslova. Takav društveni stav prema radu omogućava pokrivenost svih radnih potreba sa radnicima koji svoj rad obavljaju u skladu sa vlastitim prirodnim potrebama i sposobnostima. 

Samostalni radnik sam podnosi odgovornost za svoj rad vlastitim radnim ostvarenjima. U udruženom radu jedan neodgovoran radnik može zbog povezanosti radnih procesa nanijeti velike nepogodnosti kolektivu. Stoga “društvo koje zna” formira efikasne principe odgovornosti za neizvršenje radnih obaveza i za sve postupke koji ne odgovaraju društvu. Zato se svaki član takvog društva odnosi odgovorno prema prirodi, društvu, radu i rezultatima rada. Svjestan vlastite odgovornosti, on formira radne potrebe u skladu sa vlastitom prirodom i mogućnosti realizacije. Takva orijentacija je uvijet zadovoljenja potreba i osnova konstruktivne orijentacije društva.

 

U “društvu koje zna” proizvodi zajedničkog rada se raspoređuju prema ukupnom doprinosu svakog pojedinca u procesu proizvodnje. Rad koji proizvodi veću vrijednost donosi veće pogodnosti društvu pa zaslužuje i veću nagradu u rezultatu zajedničkog rada. Raspodjela rezultata rada među radnicima se vrši i prema stupnju nepogodnosti nastalih u trajanju rada. Nepogodniji rad zahtjeva veću kompenzaciju u pogodnostima rezultata rada. U raspodjeli proizvedenih dobara trebaju se također uključiti i doprinosi predaka radnika jer je u svakom rezultatu rada sadržana ogromna količina minulog rada. 

 

“Društvo koje zna” uvjek formira i solidarni elemenat raspodjele kojom se osigurava egzistencija cijelom stanovništvu bez obzira da li su neposredno učestvovali u proizvodnji. Na taj način društvo razvija stav da je čovjek čovjeku vrijednost. Solidarna davanja pružaju proizvode namjenjene individualnoj potrošnji svima koji ih trebaju. Tako se stvara društvena stabilnost i pomaže razvoj novih snaga u društvu koje reproduciraju takvu orijentaciju.

 

Društvo koje konstantno uspjeva zadovoljiti svoje potrebe je zadovoljno, moćno i plemenito društvo. Društvo sa plemenitim članovima nužno se međusobno ispomaže i razvija zajedništvo što donosi prosperitet. Ono ima vjeru u vlastite snage i vjeruje da je u stanju ostvariti pogodnosti. Kao posljedica takve vjere javlja se ljubav među članovima društva, ravnoteža društva i harmonija sa prirodom.

 

U takvom društvu svaki član pomaže razvoj svakog pojedinca jer time doprinosi i vlastitom razvitku. Davanje je izvor ispoljavanja bivstvene moći koja donosi velike pogodnosti. “Društvo koje zna” osigurava reprodukciju konstruktivne orijentacije i u stanju je da planira vlastiti razvoj i prosperitet. Takvo društvo je dobro društvo.

[1] Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica [Mahematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687] (New York: Daniel Adee, 2006) 

 

 

Communism Part IIII

INT. MAYOR’S OFFICE DAY

INT. MAYOR’S OFFICE DAY

 

John enjoys sitting in his chair doing nothing. His secretary Anica gets to the room and reminds John on his daily duties.

 

ANICA

Chief, you have a meeting

in 10:00 AM with the

director of public feeding.

In 1:30 PM lunch with the

director of public

transportation. In 3:00 PM

a meeting with the director

of city sewage…

 

JOHN

Cancel everything. Let them

do everything like they are

used to so far.

 

ANICA

They may work as they are

used to but that will

certainly not increase the

productivity of commune in

the scale you proposed.

 

JOHN

(waves his hand showing it

does not matter to him)

Who is the boss here?

 

ANICA

What do you mean who is

the boss?

 

JOHN

Who decides things in

Heaven?

 

ANICA

God?

 

JOHN

I was not thinking of God

nor Jesus Christ but who

is the boss among you

people here?

 

ANICA

Nobody, we are all equal

here.

 

JOHN

OK, if we are equal, why

don’t you go to those

meetings instead of me?

 

ANICA

This is your job…

 

JOHN

Now you see… that means

we are not equal! Who is

the boss here?

 

ANICA

You.

 

JOHN

No, me as a professional

executive needs powerful

people. Somebody has to

protect me. Who are these

people here?

 

ANICA

We don’t have such people

here. We don’t have

powerful nor powerless

people, nor influenced

nor uninfluenced, nor

rich nor poor…

 

JOHN

How come?

 

ANICA

That’s how we live!

 

JOHN

(asks scared)

Who will tell me what to

do then?

 

ANICA

Here everyone tells

themselves what to do.

 

JOHN

(says honestly)

But I know nothing about

this job!

 

ANICA

Then learn it fast

otherwise this hat on your

head will grow really big.

 

JOHN

OK. I’ll take these

people…

 

Director of public feeding Slavko enters the office. He is a man in his forties. Suit, tie. Serious and busy.

 

SLAVKO

Hello.

 

JOHN

(he does not stand up from

chair)

Hello. What can I do for

you?

 

SLAVKO

Where is Aleksandar?

 

JOHN

(says very arrogantly)

I am Aleksandar now.

 

SLAVKO

(is surprised)

Oh I didn’t know that…

(he gets to the point fast)

I am Slavko, director of

public feeding. People

complain that pancakes are

not tasty enough. They

accused the cook for it.

But it is not the fault of

the poor cook, the flavour

is not good. We need to get

a new flavour and use this

one as fodder…

 

John interrupts him arrogantly.

 

JOHN

You are wasteful!

 

SLAVKO

(politely)

No, no…

 

John doesn’t listen to him.

 

JOHN

No, we are not going to do

this.

 

SLAVKO

But…

 

JOHN

Tell the cook to put some

sugar in it.

 

SLAVKO

OK, but…

 

John interrupts him again.

 

JOHN

Excuse me, I am very busy.

Do you have another issue?

 

SLAVKO

I don’t. But…

 

John stands up from his chair interrupting Slavko again and walks him to the door. Slavko’s tie occupies him…

 

JOHN

Nice tie. Where did you

get it?

 

SLAVKO

I ordered it through the

internet.

 

JOHN

I am very busy these days.

Could you please order the

same one for me?

 

SLAVKO

I will, it’s not difficult

for me…

 

JOHN

I would appreciate it very

much… Nice meeting you…

 

Slavko is very confused and leaves without a word.

 

John shakes Slavko’s hand, and closes the door in his face. After that John stretches out in his chair and puts his feet on the table…

 

JOHN

(says to himself)

It’s not easy being a mayor

today.

 

INT. CLASSROOM MORNING

 

Huge high school classroom. It is unusually furnished. Every table has drawers, a computer and an upholstery chair. At the corner of the classroom are a love sofa and a triple-seat sofa for students to have discussions and rest. Beside them is a fridge stacked with refreshing drinks. Students are all cheerful. One student takes a drink from the fridge.

 

At that moment, Kathy walks in. She chose to be an English teacher.

 

KATHY

Good morning, I am your new

English teacher. I hope we

will get along together…

 

The students sit at their tables. Murmur is heard. Kathy continues…

 

KATHY

Today we will do

Shakespeare. Do you know

who said: “To be or not to

be, that is the question?”

 

No one answers so she picks a student.

 

STUDENT I

My dad said it before he

tried to turn on a washer…

…he’d been fixing it all

day.

 

KATHY

This is a famous sentence.

Do you know where he has

heard it?

 

STUDENT I

No.

 

KATHY

In the theatre. (she

stresses affectionately)

 

STUDENT I

I doubt he was ever there.

He listens to folk music

only…

 

KATHY

This sentence is said by

Hamlet in the same name

drama.

 

STUDENT II

(asks Kathy a question)

Do you know who said:

“To drink or not to drink,

that is the question?”

 

KATHY

No…

 

STUDENT II

This famous sentence is

said by me!

 

Students laugh loudly…

 

KATHY

(seriously)

It’s not funny!

 

STUDENT II

Relax a bit, maybe it would

become funny… (smiles)

 

Kathy pretends she didn’t hear it, but she is mad.

 

KATHY

Now I will give you roles

from Hamlet. For the next

class you will memorize

the lines and we will put

up a play.

 

STUDENT I

I don’t think so…

 

KATHY

Excuse me?

 

STUDENT I

(repeats)

I don’t think so…

 

Now her madness comes out…

 

KATHY

You will learn Hamlet by

heart for me! (says in a

threatening voice)

 

STUDENT I

I am going to park.

(he starts collecting his

school supplies)

 

KATHY

You cannot leave the class!

(she is very angry)

 

STUDENT I

Watch and see if I can…

 

He leaves the class. Other students follow him one by one.

Kathy is left surprised with no words…

 

EXT. ROAD DAY

 

A winding road follows the coast. The waves hit the reef. Pines and cypresses swing slightly in the breeze. The sky is blue without any clouds. Barely any traffic to be seen.

 

Danny drives his wife Bette in their Mercedes cabriolet.

 

BETTE

Look how beautiful nature

is here!

 

DANNY

(uninterested)

Yeah…

 

BETTE

I cannot breath enough of

this clean and aromatic

air… …smell of pine

and sea salt…

 

Danny does not pay attention to her. Actually he looks for something…

 

BETTE

(continues)

Have you noticed that we

passed only a few cars…

…it’s pretty quiet here…

 

Danny does not listen to her. Smile covers his face when he approaches to one brand new garage. Parks the car…

 

DANNY

Bette, come here to see

these beauties…

 

BETTE

What have you found?

 

Danny stands in front of garage, gives a significant look to Bette and starts imitating fanfare.

 

BETTE

Ta ta ra ta ta ta ta ta

ta ta ra ta ta ta ta.

Ta ta ra ta ta ta ta ta

ta ta ra ta ta ta.

Boeeeing. (imitates gong)

 

Danny opens the door of garage and proudly presents to his wife 10 Mercedes cars he collected and hid in the garage. He smiles while she rolls her eyes….

 

BETTE

What is it?

 

DANNY

Mercedes!

 

BETTE

(suspiciously)

Whose are they?

 

DANNY

Ours darling!

(responds very happily)

 

BETTE

How did you get them?

 

DANNY

(modestly)

Hard work.

 

BETTE

Excuse me?

 

DANNY

…OK, with a little help

from this wonderful place.

 

BETTE

Why do you need them?

 

DANNY

Huh?

 

BETTE

Why do you need them?

 

DANNY

I need them…

 

BETTE

Why do you need them, are

you mad?

 

DANNY

(starts worrying)

Darling, I have been

collecting them all day….

 

BETTE

Why do you need them?

 

DANNY

If one stops running…

 

BETTE

Return them immediately!

 

Danny desperately looks for an escape.

 

DANNY

Darling, may I keep just

three?

 

Bette shakes her head in protest…

 

DANNY

Two?

 

BETTE

Return all but one!

 

Danny shakes with his head unsatisfied.

 

INT. APARTMENT OF MIRJANA AND MIKI DAY

 

A very modern apartment. One can easily see the furniture is chosen and arranged tastefully. Everything is set in order.

 

Mirjana enters the apartment. Miki sits in a chair and reads newspapers.

 

MIRJANA

Hello Miki.

 

MIKI

Hi.

 

Mirjana takes off her shoes and puts on her slippers.

 

MIRJANA

Have you cleaned the

carpet?

 

MIKI

Yes, darling, I did.

 

MIRJANA

Are you sure?

 

MIKI

Yes I am sure!

 

MIRJANA

(smiles provocatively)

You will get an award

tonight…

 

Miki smiles satisfied as well.

 

Mirjana looks for something in closet and finds that Miki’s blue hat shrank. She takes it and shows to Miki.

 

MIRJANA

(surprised)

What happened to your hat?

 

MIKI

(innocently)

I do not know. It must have

shrunk in the wash…

 

MIRJANA

(says angrily)

It has shrunk in the wash!!

Now you will see what a

shrink in the wash is!!!

Oh, yes you will…

 

Mirjana angrily goes to kitchen, takes a rolling pin, returns back and threatens Miki with it.

 

MIKI

(wails)

I’m not guilty!

 

MIRJANA

What happened. Tell me

immediately! (still

threatening with a rolling

pin)

 

MIKI

I’m not guilty! (wails)

 

Mirjana waves the rolling pin.

 

MIRJANA

What happened!

 

MIKI

(afraid)

She attacked me,

she attacked me…

 

MIRJANA

(asks angrily)

Who attacked you?

 

MIKI

Diane!

 

MIRJANA

(angrily)

How did she attack you?

 

MIKI

(responses afraid)

In the office…

 

MIRJANA

(angrily)

I am asking how she

attacked you?

 

MIKI

(tries to be convincing)

Furiously!

 

MIRJANA

(angrily)

How did she attack you?

 

MIKI

(says broken)

As a woman attacks…

 

MIRJANA

Arrrghhh, the bitch will

get what deserves! Oh, yes

she will…

 

Mirjana catches Miki by hand and drags him to the street.

 

EXT. STREET DAY

 

Mirjana carries a rolling pin and drags Miki along the city street. That attracts peoples’ attention and they start following them. She catches Diane in the corner between two houses. Diane has a bigger red hat then before. The people form a circle around them.

 

MIRJANA

(screams)

Bitch, stop!!!

 

Diane turns towards her surprisingly.

 

MIRJANA

Listen to me bitch! Miki

is my man and only my man.

If you ever come closer

than ten feet to Miki,

first I will thrash you

with this (shows rolling

pin) and then I will

personally ship you right

to Hell!!!

 

DIANE

This must be a

misunderstanding…

 

Then she sees Miki and finds there is no point of lying.

 

DIANE

Please, forgive me. I will

never do it again…

(she is afraid)

 

MIRJANA

Just try me, bitch…

(turns to Miki)

And you, go home!

 

MIKI

I’m going honey, I’m

going…

 

The people around them smile…

 

MIRJANA

This attacked you, ha?

 

Miki is silent.

 

MIRJANA

You couldn’t resist this,

ha?

 

Miki is very silent.

 

On returning home they are passing children ages 10-15 years who plant flowers in the park.

 

INT. BEDROOM MORNING

 

John wakes up beside Diane, takes a shower, sings, takes clothes and suddenly twitches in pain when he sees his hat. His hat has become five feet long. Runs to his office.

 

INT. MAYOR’S OFFICE DAY

 

John rushes off to the office, looks for the secretary Anica. She is already there. He wears the red hat on his head and holds the knitted ball at the end of hat in his right hand. He raises his hand to the side. The middle of the hat droops because the hat it longer than his arm.

 

JOHN

Anica, what is this?

 

ANICA

A red hat.

 

JOHN

(says frightened)

I know, but why is it as

it is?

 

ANICA

The people are very

dissatisfied with your

decisions. You have not

realised proposed

productivity. I am afraid

your hat will grow more.

 

JOHN

Stop, stop, stop…

Stop this unjustified

process.

 

ANICA

You can do it alone by

resigning from the

position….

 

JOHN

I want, I want, I want,

now!

 

ANICA

That will bring a penalty

that will increase the size

of your hat but the process

will stop soon.

 

JOHN

OK, OK!

Where?

 

ANICA

In your computer…

 

John takes a keyboard and fills a resigning form. Leaves the office without a word. While leaving the building he meets Aleksandar. John is embarrassed, looks to the floor but still…

 

JOHN

Hello.

 

ALEKSANDAR

Hello Mr. 100%, how are

you doing?

 

John runs away to the street saying nothing.

 

EXT. STREET DAY

 

John exits to the street where he deeply exhales and feels relief. But a big red hat gets lots of attention from people. Everybody who sees him becomes shocked because such an appearance is very rare. John is embarrassed, takes off the hat, and hides it in his bag. Accidentally Jack walks by. He sees that John does not have a hat on his head…

 

JACK

(smiles and says cynically)

John better put your hat

back on. It is useful.

If you behave properly the

people will give you

positive evaluations and

you will escape from

Hell…

 

John understands the lesson, brokenly puts the hat back on the head, and leaves absorbed in thoughts. When Jack sees how big hat John has, he cannot resist but to mock him behind his back.

 

EXT. PARK DAY

 

Kevin drives a local bus. Stops at the bus station. Lazar gets off the bus. Kevin smiles kindly…

 

KEVIN

Have a nice day!

 

Lazar waves to Kevin. Kevin waves back. Lazar continues towards park. In the park he accidentally meets Al who is absorbed in thoughts. Lazar approaches him with a smile.

 

LAZAR

What’s on your mind,

godfather?

 

They shake hands.

 

AL

I’ve thought about what

to do…

 

LAZAR

(is jolly)

And what did you come up

with?

 

AL

I cannot go against the

system.

 

LAZAR

Why?

 

AL

It’s too strong. And it’s

not bad at all…

 

LAZAR

That’s right, but we can

do something!

 

AL

Something else bothers

me…

 

LAZAR

What?

 

AL

My past persecutes me.

 

LAZAR

How come?

 

AL

I am deeply sorry for being

a criminal…

 

LAZAR

So you are done?

 

AL

(nods his head

affirmatively)

I want to devote myself to

spiritual life. I’ve

decided to become a priest.

 

LAZAR

But why priest? Come to us

in a communist party. The

spiritual life we have,

nobody has…

 

AL

I’ve decided.

 

LAZAR

Well, it’s your decision,

so good luck… (he smiles)

Let’s have a drink in the

name of your decision!

 

Al smiles, hugs Lazar, and they go to have a drink.

 

EXT. SQUARE LATE NIGHT

 

Middle-aged town surrounded by huge bulwarks. Houses made of stone. Simple architecture. At the end of the main street is a Baroque church.

 

Here John meets Diane. Late night. Empty town.

 

JOHN

It seems I screwed up

totally…

 

DIANE

I see… (red hat long five

feet says it all)

 

JOHN

Guaranteed, I’ll finish in

Hell… For God’s sake, do

you know what the trial

period here is?

 

DIANE

Miki mentioned one year but

I am not sure…

 

JOHN

Uh, then maybe I still have

a chance…

 

DIANE

Now you are the same as Al.

If he has a chance you

definitely have one too.

We must grow wiser

quickly…

 

JOHN

I agree, but how?

 

DIANE

I think the best choice is

to behave same as others,

and what will be, will be…

 

JOHN

I agree, that’s the best.

 

They leave absorbed in thoughts.

 

EXT. PARK AT BEACH AFTERNOON

 

Sunny day, no winds but rough sea. A picnic is arranged with barbecue, entertainment and sport contests. Food in abundance, lots of beers and wines. All characters are present. They sit together by the tables and around on the grass. Somebody plays the guitar and sings. Many join him when they recognise the song. Everything happens in perfect harmony, joy and laughter.

 

BETTE

(asks Danny)

Have you returned the

Mercedes?

 

DANNY

Yes, I have, darling. You

know, all night I have been

thinking, why would I need

these Mercedes…

 

BETTE

And what did you come up

with?

 

DANNY

I don’t need them.

 

BETTE

You thought well.

 

DANNY

I came up with something

else.

 

BETTE

What?

 

DANNY

You always know what is

good and what is not. You

are my sunshine.

(tells gently)

 

Bette is very flattered and joyful.

 

Kevin meets a girl he likes. They whisper something and smile all the time. He is very satisfied.

 

Suddenly somebody screams. A huge whirlpool appears in the sea. One boy in a canoe tries to escape it. He paddles strongly but the canoe overturns. The boy does not swim well. The whirlpool is reaching him slowly. Only a good swimmer can pull out the boy from the sea before the whirlpool takes him down. Nobody dares to help him. John takes off his clothes, grabs a surfboard, jumps into the sea and rescues the kid. All the people applaud.

 

Lazar and Brandon stand close to each other by chance and watch John exiting the sea and carrying the child.

 

LAZAR

(murmur to himself)

He steals water again!

 

BRANDON

(asks him)

Excuse me, what did you say?

 

LAZAR

Satan steals water.

 

BRANDON

(asks him)

Who?

 

LAZAR

Satan!

 

BRANDON

Why would he do that?

 

LAZAR

The people are very thirsty

down there.

 

BRANDON

They drink salt water?

 

LAZAR

That’s why it’s called Hell.

 

Brandon gives a confused look on his face.

 

Some people congratulate to John, some take their cell phones out while watching John, and type something. Somebody says John is a hero. Diane watches John proudly. He rinses himself and takes his clothes back. Looks for his hat but cannot find it. He does not recognise it because it shrunk to a normal size. Proudly shows it to Diane. She happily gives him thumbs up and asks him…

 

DIANE

Did you know that was the

entrance to Hell?

 

John widens his eyes, looks at Diane very surprised, but says nothing.

 

The people continue to entertain and drink. Kathy talks to Jack.

 

KATHY

How can they drink beer in

a park?

 

JACK

Kathy this is not the US.

This is Heaven.

 

Jack takes a look to the sky and makes mouth mimicry (without a voice) “Thank you.” Kathy just nods her head complying.

 

Suddenly Kathy sees the student she had a misunderstanding with in school passing by. She stands up and approaches the student…

 

KATHY

Hi!

 

STUDENT I

Hi!

 

KATHY

Please forgive me. I was

very arrogant in the

classroom.

 

STUDENT I

No problem.

 

KATHY

That will never happen

again… Please come to

the class and bring your

classmates.

 

STUDENT I

(smiles satisfied)

I will, no problem.

 

Jack hears that but cannot believe what he is hearing.

 

JACK

Such nice words I have

never heard from you all

my life.

 

KATHY

(says honestly while

smiling)

It’s never late to learn.

 

Jack expresses great satisfaction. He climbs up on a chair and shouts out loudly…

 

JACK

People, please pay

attention!

 

They all turn towards him.

 

JACK

(continues)

Kathy and I have been

married for forty years…

That was a marriage full of

ferment, pleasant and less

pleasant moments. I will

never forget how devoted

she was to me when I broke

my leg at skiing 30 years

ago. But I also remember

she spent a lot of time

with a skiing teacher while

I was in bed… She likes

working with kids very much

but her own she could not

give birth. God is my

witness, I worked hard on

it… Sometimes she cooks

what I cannot stand and

complains when I drink a

little bit, but if we

exclude these small

shortages, she is a good

woman… Therefore I am

making a solemn vow

– Kathy, I love you.

 

He said it loudly, clearly, and proudly. After that the audience joyfully applauses. Jack bows to her and to everybody else. Kathy begins to shed tears.

 

When Brandon has heard the declaration of love, he gets an inspiration, kneels on one knee before Frances.

 

BRANDON

Frances I love you. Will

you marry me?

 

FRANCES

Brandon I love you very

much. I will marry you!

 

He jumps to the sky. They are both very happy, kiss each other. Brandon pulls a ring from his pocket and gives it to Frances. Again they kiss. Again people applaud.

 

BRANDON

(tells all)

You are all invited to

celebrate our marriage.

 

People applaud and congratulate them.

 

Al comes to park in a black priesthood. He has a cardinal’s type, size, and red color hat with a small knitted ball on the top.

 

AL

(shows his priesthood to

Kevin)

Does it suit me well?

(smiles)

 

KEVIN

Super, even your own mother

wouldn’t recognise you!

(he smiles)

 

Beside Al in priesthood stands Lazar. Lazar still has hat “titovka” with red star. Together they make a very strange picture.

 

AL

(asks Lazar)

If this is Heaven, where

is Jesus Christ?

 

LAZAR

He stops by sometimes.

 

AL

To control us?

 

LAZAR

No there is no need. He

comes over for dinner, we

drink and enjoy time.

 

Joy continues. Everything is full of laughter.

 

EXT. PARK BESIDE THE SEA DAY

 

Marriage celebration of Frances and Brandon. The altar is in the park. The wedding guests sit on the chairs. The bride is in white with a blue hat below the veil. Brandon has a dark dress suit and of course a blue hat. They all have blue hats. John has so little hat he has to wear it on the top of his small finger. He shows it to camera and winks satisfied. One man who sits in the middle of the table, has a blue hat ten foot long wrapped around his shoulders like ribbons. Lazar has a blue hat with red star. Al has red cardinal’s hat with a small blue knitted ball on the top.

 

Brandon holds Frances’s hand in front of the altar. He kisses her cheek. Al starts the speech of the marriage proccedure with the help of the book and marries them…

 

AL

We are gathered here today

to witness the coming

together of two people,

Brandon and Frances, whose

hearts and spirits are

entwined as one.

Marriage is a promise,

made in the hearts of two

people who love each other.

Within the circle of its

love, marriage encompasses

all of most important

relationships. A wife and

a husband are each other’s

lover, teacher, listener,

critic, and best friend.

 

Frances looks at Brandon with love in her eyes. Brandon returns the look…

 

AL

(continues)

Do you Brandon, take

Frances, to be your

lawfully wedded wife, to

love, honour, and cherish

her as much as you can?

 

BRANDON

I do!

 

AL

(continues)

And do you Frances, take

Brandon, to be your

lawfully wedded husband,

to love, honour, and

cherish him as much as

you can?

 

FRANCES

I do!

 

AL

You may now exchange

rings.

 

 

They put their rings on each other happy and smiling.

 

AL

The ring is a symbol of

unity into which your two

lives are now joined in an

unbroken circle; in which,

wherever you go, you will

return to one another.

Let these rings bring you

closer together forever in

love… …love has no

other desire but to

fulfill itself!

 

Brandon and Frances watch each other lovingly. Frances has a tear in her eye.

 

AL

(continues)

May this day shine

eternally in your lives!

I now pronounce you husband

and wife. (watches Brandon)

You may now kiss the bride!

 

Brandon kisses Frances. The wedding guests cheer and applaud. Then Frances turns around and throws the bouquet. Diane catches the bouquet and laughs. John smiles. Jack borrows a flower from the bouquet and puts it in Kathy’s hair. Kathy is very happy.

 

They all move to the dinner tables close by and sit there. Bette sings folks songs with the brass band. They all salute with champagne, dance folk dances (professionals help them so that it looks perfect) happily and satisfied. Movie ends full of joy and optimism towards the future.

 

Words come up: “IT’S NOT THE END”

 

EXT. PARK BESIDE THE SEA DAY

 

Silence. Beautiful green nature and blue sea. One can hear birds chirping and a silent overture to Beethoven’s IX symphony. The camera zooms in and stops on one man. It is the same man who had a ten foot long hat at the wedding celebration. But he has not it now. He wears a simple shirt and jeans. He stands on a big rock beside the sea and says to the camera…

 

MAN

Bless you.

 

Then he makes a small bow and friendly smiles.

 

Music CRESCENDO. Choir sings “Song of Joy” FORTE. The camera stays a few seconds on Jesus and then zooms out long.

 

Words come up: “NOW IS THE BEGINNING”

 

 

 

 

Back to the beginning