Author: Aleksandar

Future of Democracy

The Future of Democracy

The word democracy derives from the Greek words that mean “people govern.” Generally, it is assumed throughout the world that the democratic way of decision-making is the best possible and therefore, the most acceptable. The only problem is that nobody knows what exactly it means. It would be ideal if people mutually agree and create rules on an equal basis that would be valid in their collective, but it is impossible to achieve because every society brings an unlimited number of decisions about which all people cannot decide on either due to lack of interest, knowledge, or time.

 

Therefore, today an indirect form of democracy where people elect at the polls their representatives in government is generally accepted. Candidates who win the most votes of the people receive the mandate to govern on behalf of the people in a given period. The peoples’ representatives in government should represent the interests of their electors, but they cannot successfully do it, because they have insufficient insight into the wishes of the voters who have elected them. It goes without saying that an elected government has no desire at all to meet the needs of those people who did not vote for them. Besides that, representatives of the people are quite privileged, and as such they more often represent their own interests or the interests of a privileged class of people who help them in elections rather than the interests of the people. So that in practice, indirect forms of democracy cannot adequately follow the will of people and therefore, they are not satisfactory. Also, the democratically elected leaders can cause significant harm to the people of which there is not an adequate defence. For example, democratically elected Adolf Hitler and George Bush are remembered mostly by the destructions they initiated “in the name of the people.”

 

The will of people may be followed to a greater extent by a direct form of democracy through referendums, where people directly decide on issues of self-interest. The intention of the majority of people accepts or rejects the proposed decision. This form of democracy also has significant disadvantages. Firstly, I would mention that a majority of people might outvote a minority and thus cause inconvenience to the minority, which is unacceptable. The principle of consensus among representatives of people on issues that people should vote about, make such a form of democracy more acceptable. But direct democracy is rarely applied, primarily because governments do not like people messing with their businesses and then because the organization of referendums is not a simple process. Finally, each society brings a vast number of decisions about which one could not call for referendums because people do not have enough knowledge about making all the decisions or are not interested in it or do not have time to participate in them. And so decisions in society are always brought by privileged authorities that do not follow the will of the people sufficiently.

 

Does this mean that the will of the people cannot be carried out? That democracy cannot be developed? Scholars of social sciences do not see a solution to the problem of democracy and cannot establish any consensus on how a developed democracy should look like. The establishment of a developed form of democracy requires the discovery of a new pathway that will effectively implement the will of people. To reach it, one needs to think outside the box. I have managed to create a straightforward and original way, leading to a fully developed democracy.

 

***

Let’s allow every person, who within the scope of his activity can affect us in any way, to do it freely upon their will. We do not even have many choices because we cannot interfere with the freedom of activities of presidents, doctors and mechanics, or any other worker, nor do we have the ability, nor the time, nor the right, perhaps not even the desire to do so. However, all these people may create advantages and disadvantages through their actions to individuals and society. We indeed have developed the ability to sense whether or not the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or any other person, brings some advantages or disadvantages to us. And according to it, we should have the right to award a person who through his or her acting creates convenience for us and punish a person who does inconveniences to us. Such a right would certainly direct all people to perform the least inconveniences and the greatest conveniences to other people. Such an orientation of society would undoubtedly follow the will of all the people in the best possible way and therefore, would present a developed democracy.

 

My philosophy is based on the equal rights of people because it is the only proper orientation of society. In this regard, let each person have the same power to punish let’s say three individuals who hurt him or her the most in any month, and to award let’s say three individuals who realize the most significant benefits to him or her each month. This is the essence and the rest is a technical matter which will be performed through an application on the internet. Everyone will be able to negatively evaluate people he or she does not like, for example, their prime mister, neighbour, or boss. And vice versa, everyone will be able to positively evaluate people they like, for example, their friend, teacher, or singer. The sum of all of the positive and negative evaluations that individuals receive will tell every individual how he or she is appreciated in society.

 

I propose also that the rewards and punishments have an equivalent value of let’s say one dollar. Each award a person receives from somebody will bring them one dollar and each penalty will take away one dollar from them. In that manner, all people will become the same authorities who have a small direct power in society. Given that all people will have equal rights and the power of evaluation, and that they can give their rewards and punishments to other people regardless of any written rules, such a democracy will present the form of anarchy. That is the reason why I have called such an evaluating system democratic anarchy. I am confident that this is the only possible path toward full democracy and good society.

 

Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to respect other people. People will become values to all people. They will create the most significant possible advantages for the community and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems to society. In this straightforward way, the populus will realize a great direct power in society for the first time in the history of humankind, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.

 

Many people, including university professors, have given me remarks in the sense that people are not able to objectively judge other people. I have answered them that objectivity is desirable but not essential. People will judge others the way they feel, and every person is obliged to take into account the consequences his actions may have on other people. By adopting this system, this will happen, and that is what will bring considerable benefits to society. Furthermore, a system that supports the equal rights of people will develop objectivity in the community, and when that happens, people will certainly objectively judge other people.

 

Individuals will not have much power in society, but their evaluations joined together will be very powerful. A person who receives a large number of negative assessments would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively so that he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school anymore; bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will take privileged powers from all the people; this is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.

 

The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, The President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and criminal aggression on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. On the other hand, I doubt that his supporters would certainly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.

 

People will judge other people freely. In this regard, I have received many complaints in the sense that people may evaluate other people maliciously because of spite or envy. I answered that such a risk exists but I would add that individual assessment of one dollar might not cause significant harm to anyone. The damage that an individual can make is insignificant compared to the damage authorities can make because they often pull back the whole society. Take the example of Adolf Hitler and George Bush again. In the system that I have proposed these individuals would get so many negative evaluations from people from the very beginning of their careers that they would no longer dare to cause evil. Their followers would receive negative assessments as well so that organized evil would hardly rise in such a society. It is possible to forbid people who receive a large number of negative evaluations from governing society. In this way, authorities will no longer dare to carry out aggression and wars.

 

Is it worthwhile to allow individuals to wrongly judge others for one dollar if such trials would abolish all forms of destructiveness in society? Sure it is. Also, the new system will develop objective values and the conscience of the people where malice and envy would hardly exist. If something like that would still exist, each person would be able to correct a possible wrongful assessment that he gave to another individual by instigating a correct evaluation even many years later when he experiences enlightenment under the influence of the new system. And they will.

 

So what if influential people who own mass media unfairly accuse someone of evil in society and thus prompt people to give bad evaluations to the wrong person? Such things are easily possible in today’s society. However, there is a proverb that says: “Lies have short legs.” One day the lie will be revealed, and then I would not like to be in the skin of these individuals who lied because they will be punished by the people for sure.

 

Democratic anarchy will finally and unconditionally create a good society, and therefore it presents the greatest invention of all the time.

 

***

Under pressure from democratic anarchy, an elected government will inevitably follow the needs of the people. The authorities would indeed not dare to make the most important decisions for society alone because they can easily make mistakes that might bring about the wrath of the people and a large number of negative evaluations. If the authorities are not sure what the needs of the people are then their responsibility, clearly defined by the fear of peoples’ evaluations, directs them to discover love towards peoples’ participation in decision-making processes through referendums. In this regard, they will develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for direct decision-making of the people, most likely over the Internet.

 

The people will directly create the macroeconomic policy of the society because it is the foundation that directs the economy, and that means an entire community. How? Quite simply, one first needs to enable every person to decide how much money from their gross income they want to pay for taxes. The average values of all the peoples’ expressions will determine what percentage of salaries each worker will put aside for taxation. Furthermore, in the same way, each person can decide on how tax money is spent. Each person will determine how much tax money they would set aside for: the defence of the state, public safety, education, health, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc.

 

Theoretically, people can decide on a collective consumption within the consumer groups as much as they want. All these groups of shared consumption will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. Following the living experience, people will learn how much money should be collected for taxes and what the best way to spend it is. Thus, this spending will follow the needs of people in the most efficient way because it will no longer be alienated from society. In such a way, the people will become active members of society and so; they will accept their community a lot more. Given that the new system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the needs of armies and armies will cease to exist. In the democracy I have proposed, war will no longer be possible.

 

The people must directly make strategic decisions in society because that is the only way the policy of society certainly follows the interests of people. Professionals could make all other decisions, and they will be directly responsible to the people for those decisions. Once people get the power to participate in the decision-making process of their own interests and when they can judge those who make decisions on their behalf, which will present the most developed form of democracy. There’s no better political way. Such a democracy will realize all the dreamers’ dreams in the history of humankind. Once such democracy is accepted, people will become so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to seize it from them.

 

***

 

This is just a basic idea about the future of democracy. It cannot be understood well enough without reading and analyzing my book “Humanism” available free of charge here: Table of Contens.

 

January 15, 2011

2006.10.19

Let’s build democratic anarchy

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations based on the hierarchical structure of making a decision about organizing society, but the final power will belong directly to all of the people. We cannot cooperate everywhere. In the first place, we just do not have time for it. Also, we have to pass our participation rights in the decision-making processes in society to people who are experts in the fields. Let’s give the people the freedom to do whatever they think is the best for society, but those people must not disappoint us when they decide something in the fields of our interest.


Democratic anarchy will enforce that by assigning every person an equal right and power to evaluate any other person. Let’s say each person gets the right to assess three people positively and three people negatively every month. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small benefit, let’s say one dollar, to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in a punishment of the same form.


What would we get? Such a small power in the people’s hand will make individuals respect each other strongly. Each member of society will try to create the highest possible advantages for the community, and to diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages.


People will judge other people freely. That means an immoral person may evaluate other people dishonestly, but it will not matter much because an individual power of one dollar cannot produce harm to anybody. If two people do not like each other, they may evaluate each other negatively for years, which would not be a big deal. Getting or losing three dollars in the developed world does not mean much. Individuals will not have much power in society but independent evaluations of people joined together will be mighty. Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively. However, the result will be very affirmative because he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone.


A person who receives a large number of negative evaluations would work even harder to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people and to produce betterment to all. As the result of it, a bully will not harass you at school, your boss will not abuse you at work, your neighbour will not produce noise at night, a salesperson will not cheat on you, politicians will not lie to you; you name it. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will eliminate social evil and make a good society.


The higher position in society a worker has, the more responsible to society he would be. If you are an exposed person, for example, a chief of a hundred workers, there is no chance you would be a jerk to the workers (which is, by the way, a very occasional incident today) because they might evaluate you negatively and it may cost you few hundred dollars monthly. By the system of evaluations, chiefs would immediately lose their privileged status among the workers. They will not have any other choice than to cooperate with workers.


The president of the US, for example, might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and for the criminal aggression in other countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. Such a president would not be privileged by any means anymore. He would run away from his position so fast that no one would have remembered him as a president. Only the most skilful and bravest individuals, willing to cooperate with all of the people, would dare to lead countries. They will not be authorities any more but our servants.


Everyone will serve others as much as he or she can. Everyone will try hard to please society in the best possible way, and that will make a harmonious society. By the time, the system of evaluation will abolish the state laws, police and military force, and very states. Nobody will need it anymore. That would be perfect anarchy. You may find more about that here: The Future of Democracy.


01.02.2005

Svatko može postati genij

Osoba koja dobije dobru ideju i razvije je tako da ona postane priznata kao veliki doprinos društvu je genije. Veliki geniji su oni koji su uskočili u nepoznati prostor nauke ili umjetnosti i tamo razvili ideju koja stvara velike pogodnosti čovječanstvu. Ali svako može razviti ideju koje unaprijeđuje društvo tako da svako može postati genij. Ovaj članak prikazuje kako se to može ostvariti.

 

Ljudi misle da je za genija najvažniji visoki IQ pa se genij definira sa IQ većim od 140. Visoka inteligencija može pomoći geniju ali ona nije nužna. Najvažnije za razvoj genija jest sloboda čovjeka da radi ono što voli. Tada čovjek mnogo misli o onome što radi i odjednom, kada to ne očekuje, praktično niotkuda, dobre ideje o njegovom poslu mu padaju na pamet. Na tom principu radi genijalni mozak.

 

Na žalost, mi danas živimo u društvu u kojim sloboda izbora posla nije razvijena. Kada čovjek izabere ono što bi volio raditi prvo mora godinama ići u školu da bi ispunio birokratske zahtjeve za popunu takvog radnog mjesta. To nije nužno. Nadalje, današnji sistem obrazovanja od potencijalnih genijalaca očekuje sposobnost akumulacije velike količine znanja. To je jako pogrešno. Nedovoljno kritički prihvaćene informacije otuđuju čovjekovo znanje i emocije od objektivne realnostti što je pogubno za razvoj genija. Današnji sistem obrazovanja će od ljudi prije napraviti robote nego genijalce.

 

Nadalje, kada čovjek završi školu njegove šanse da dobije posao koji voli nisu velike zato što je većina radnih mjesta popunjena. Također čovjek treba novac za život. Poslovi koje mora raditi samo zato da bi preživio u današnjem društvu ga ne mogu učiniti genijem.

 

Genij ne vjeruje autoritetima ne zato što oni lažu, dobro oni često lažu, već zato što on traži istinu u sebi. On definitivno odbija svako znanje koje ne osjeća prihvatljivim za sebe. On jako dobro zna što voli raditi i normalno to radi jako mnogo. To mu uzvraća duboko razumijevanje onoga što radi. On nadalje bezuvjetno traži istinu zato što je ona za njega najveća vrijednost. On nalazi istinu trudeći se da bude objektivan koliko god to može.

 

Genij bez prestanka vježba svoju objektivnost u svakodnevnom životu i to ga uči ne samo da razvije znanje nego i da bude mudar. Biti mudar je stvarno najveća nagrada koju čovjek može ostvariti. Samo mudrost daje dobar život čovjeku i harmoniju društvu. Ne valja uzalud trošiti život bez mudrosti, treba vježbati objektivnost.

 

Ako čovjek ne dobije priliku da radi ono što voli tada nema šanse da postane genij; on tada postaje suprotnost genija. On ne radi svoj posao više nego što mora, on ne razmišlja o svom poslu i ne može dobiti dobre ideje za unaprijeđenje posla koji obavlja. On je nemoćan i nezadovoljan. To ga usmjerava da slijedi autoritete koji su uglavnom također nemoćni i nezadovoljni.

 

Umjesto da razvijaju svoju produktivnu moć, takvi ljudi traže subjektivni izlaz iz svoje nemoći i nalaze ga tamo gdje ga je društvo usvojilo; u nadmoći nad drugim ljudima. Ta moć se manifestira u višem položaju u društvu, u slavi ili novcu. Svaki uspjeh na tim poljima čovjeku daje iluziju prevladavanja vlastite nemoći u prirodi. Ovo je mentalno lako rješenje koje brzo daje izlaz iz nezadovoljstva i donosi veliku sreću.

 

Međutim, cjelokupna orjentacija takvog čovjeka je otuđena od uzroka koji su ga učinili nezadovoljnim tako da je i ostvarena sreća otuđena. Povratak u realnost je neizbježan i bolan. Bol blokira čovjekove prirodne osjete tako da on više ne može osjetiti što je dobro; njegova svijest nije slobodna, njegova svijest robuje pohlepnoj strasti tako da za razliku od genija, takav čovjek ne može stvoriti dobre ideje. Takav čovjek stvara loše odluke i za sebe i za društvo i zato donosi probleme i sebi i društvu.

 

U stvari osoba sa takvom orjentacijom je luda. Takva definicija ludosti nije prihvaćena u današnjem društvu ali ona prikazuje stanje kakvo ono stvarno jeste. Takvo društvo uvijek ima velike konflikte interesa među ljudima i vrlo destruktivnu društvenu orjentaciju. To je upravo svijet u kojem živimo.

 

Kao zaključak treba reći da nikada nije bilo lako postati genij. Dok se naše društvo ne promijeni, ovdje i dalje nema pomoći.

 

Sistem koji sam predložio po prvi put nudi ljudima slobodu izražavanja i rada gdje god imaju interes. To će omogućiti ljudima da vole ono što rade i tako će se otvoriti mogućnost razvoja genija. Novi sistem će također zahtijevati odgovorno ponašanje u društvu koje će stimulirati razvoj prirodne objektivne orjentacije čovjeka i kao rezultat društvo će biti neusporedivo bolje.

Takvo društvo će omogućiti svakome da razvija osjete, percepciju, inteligenciju, logiku, znanje i da postane genij. Radnici će postati genijalni kuhari, mehaničari, znanstvenici, filozofi i cijelo društvo će tako ostvariti ogromne pogodnosti.

 

2006.10.09

Let’s demystify the system of education

Education gives the needed knowledge. In the alienated society, we live in today, authorities determine what knowledge is required, and society does not have any other choice than to accept it. Today’s authorities have established the compulsory education on purpose, to make sure that established order, their way of thinking, and their values would be thoroughly accepted by students. Such education is alienated. It alienates us from our nature, prevents the development of our abilities, and prevents us from living a normal life.


Alienated societies overestimate the significance of education. The best learning comes from practice. When a man likes what he is doing, he quickly learns everything that he needs for doing his work. But we can very rarely get the chance to work what we would like to do because most of the work positions are taken and inaccessible to other people. When we cannot productively express ourselves through natural needs such as work, we seek for alienated shapes of values that degenerate us. That is precisely the situation we have today.


The new system I have proposed brings an open competition of workers for every work post. The worker who anticipates and offers the highest productivity for the needed work post will get the job. The system will form far higher responsibilities of workers for their work and productivity than it is possible today so that no one will dare to offer productivity that they cannot achieve, such as how politicians regularly do today for example.


In such a system, work will not be conditioned by education. Education will be treated only as help for work. Firstly, that means the school will not be an obligation. Students will freely take lessons where they want and when they want. It could be assumed that most of the students will not attend classes they do not have interests in or do not receive direct benefits from. Education in the future will aim to teach students the knowledge they need.


Schools will be places for students socialize with teachers and exchange their theoretical knowledge and experience from practice. The work competition will require professors to be the best experts in their fields. That will be provided by the evaluation of teachers by students. I think that teachers will not evaluate students anymore because that will not be needed. Once the students start to work their clients and customers will assess them. The changes in the system of education will be significant and essential.


I think that education in the future will teach students how to help themselves maximally. One could assume that most visited classes will be “do it yourself“ in all the natural sciences: mechanics, electrics, electronics, feeding, health, and even in medicine. I believe that the people in the future will need to acquire the basic knowledge of medicine in the scope that family doctors usually use so that they could be able to heal themselves as much as possible.


The new system will reveal the social sciences to the objective essence and then we would all become well familiarized with the social sciences. As all people speak their mother’s tongue pretty well without matter of the level of education, the same way, all of the people will become good psychologists, sociologists, lawyers, economists, philosophers, artists, etc., just because they live in the new system.


Most of the workplaces today objectively do not require schooling but only a short course. The students will take such courses by their free will. The students will also make a curriculum for their studies following their needs and skills. That would be the case even in large, complex, specialized jobs. For example, a student studies in rocket science. Soon he finds he does not know enough mathematics to be able to follow the lectures in rocket science. Then he postpones the study of rocket science and starts studying mathematics until he gets the knowledge necessary to continue studying rocket science. Education in the future will require the shortest way of acquiring needed knowledge.


Today, for example, an average surgeon needs to educate himself for more than twenty years. What slavery to the bureaucracy that is! What a loss of time in the most creative edge! I think that an average educated person may acquire proficiency in surgery in a much shorter time if he throws out everything that is not necessary. How to do this? While taking the required lessons, the student surgeons will attend the surgeries of experienced surgeons. When a student finishes the program he chooses for a surgeon profession, he will estimate alone whether he is able to perform an operation. The surgeons will not evaluate their own skills wrongfully because the regulation of the work responsibility will be much stronger than it is today. The patients will not be in danger of non-professional surgeons because experienced surgeons will supervise the beginners. Besides that, when a beginner surgeon feels capable of surgery, he will still need to convince patients that he is capable of doing it because patients will choose their surgeons alone. A surgeon who makes a big mistake by performing a surgery might lose their patients forever. So that if a beginner surgeon does not feel capable of delivering an operation, he could attend additional education as much as he feels he needs.


That’s how demystified education should look like. That is how the future of education would look like.

29.01.2005

Ja sam genije ili možda čak Mesija

Kreirao sam novi socijalno ekonomski sistem koji će napraviti raj na zemlji. Promoviram taj sistem evo već 12 godina ali ipak znanost ga ne prihvaća. Slijedeći mogući korak u promociji sistema jest da prikažem sebe kao genija ili možda čak Mesiju. Tko god pročita bilo šta od mog rada može zaključiti da sam ja kandidat za takve titule.

 

Problem leži u tome što niko osim mene ne vidi da li sam ja više nego kandidat zato što niko osim mene ne vidi kakve će rezultate donijeti sistem koji sam predložio. Ali ako jednog dana moj sistem spasi svijet, tada se može prihvatiti da sam ja genij ili možda čak Mesija, ako ne, tada sam ja najvjerojatnije glupan ili luđak. Kako nije moguće dokazati što će se dogoditi u budućnosti ja ću sada dati argumante koji pokazuju da nisam ni glup ni lud.

 

Meni se čini da me posebnim čini moja nezavisnost. Ja nisam mogao prihvatiti nikakve ideje koje nisam osjetio da su logične i dobre. To nije u stvari nikad bila svjesna odluka, to je nešto što je ugrađeno u mene. Neki bi to nazvali lijenost. Nisam imao nikakav interes u školi i kao posljedica bio sam najgori učenik u svim razredima i iz svih predmeta. Pokušavao sam mnogo puta da budem dobar učenik ali nisam uspio u tome. Nije bilo ugodno biti loš učenik ali mi je to donijelo neke prednosti koje obični ljudi nemaju. Odbijanjem da prihvatim nametnuto znanje u školi nisam opteretio svoj mozak sa otuđenim idejama, sačuvao sam slobodu svojih misli, svoje prirodne instinkte, percepciju i osjete što mi je omogućilo da odaberem ispravan put.

 

Sa druge strane kada sam volio nešto da radim ja sam u to ulagao ogromnu energiju. Tako sam trenirao svoju logiku i inteligenciju. Tako sam razvio sposobnosti da kreiram ”čuda” tamo gdje sam imao interes.

 

Najveće prihvaćeno ”čudo” koje sam do danas napravio je pobjeda na jugoslovenskom arhitektonskom natječaju za uređenje glavnog trga u Zagrebu, Hrvatska. U to vrijeme ja sam bio samo loš student treće godina Arhitektonskog fakulteta. Natječaj je bio jako atraktivan tako da su na njemu sudjelovali najbolji jugoslovenski arhitekti uključujući i moje profesore. Moja pobjeda je zato bila velika senzacija. Loš student arhitekture koji postane najbolji arhitekt Jugoslaviaje bi trebao nagovijestiti genija. Nije li tako?

 

Da sam ostao u arhitekturi to bi vjerojatno bilo lakše za vidjeti danas. Ali ovdje nema ni malo razloga za žaljenje. U arhitekturi nema tako puno prostora za napredovanje dok je filozofija o kojoj govorim veliki prazni prostor, danas praktično “vakuum”. Osim toga filozofija me interesira daleko više nego arhitektura i zato sam tu napravio daleko bolji rezultat nego što bih ga mogao napraviti u arhitekturi. Jedini problem je što to ljudi ne mogu vidjeti. Pokušat ću to ilustrirati sa jednim primjerom; kada bi običan čovjek danas ugledao planinu napravljeni od zlata on bi jurio da prikupi zlata koliko god može. Ja moram da kažem da je moja knjiga daleko vrijednija od zlatne planine zato što može svima donijeti daleko bolji život nego što to može zlatna planina, ali to niko ne vidi. Tu se samo radi o percepciji gdje su stvarne vrijednosti.

 

Cijeli život me moja priroda usmjerava protiv struja koje su prihvaćene u društvu. To me učinilo vrlo drugačijim od ostalih ljudi a to nije lako biti. Morao sam se suprotstaviti velikim teškoćama. To je razvilo moje znanje i snagu da djelujem protiv struja i na kraju rezultati su potvrđivali da sam u pravu.

 

To me sada učinilo prilično samouvjerenim da proglasim sebe genijem. Može se reći da genij nije daleko od luđaka, ali pobjeda na jugoslovenskom arhitektonskom natjećaju zahtjeva jako razvijenu objektivnu spoznaju i razum što isključuje ludilo. Tri profesora sa beogradskog univerziteta su već pisanjem recenzija moje knjige potvrdili da ja nisam ni glup ni lud. To sve zajedno bi trebalo u najmanju ruku učiniti ljude jako znatiželjnim kada kažem da će sistem koji sam predožio promijeniti svijet i učiniti ga prekrasnim mjestom za život.

 

Sada dolazi teško pitanje: Jesam li ja Mesija sa velikim “M”, onaj iz religije? Pred godinu dana, u svrhu privlačenja veće pažnje na svoj rad, prijavio sam se za radno mjesto Isusa Krista u članku ovdje: Jesam li ja Isus Krist?


Ja mislim da sam izvanredno ispunio zahtjeve koje bi Isus Krist trebao učinIti na planeti Zemlji. Na primjer, objasnio sam kako socijalno dobro može jednostavno i trajno pobijediti socijalno zlo, nešto što je povijest čovječanstva uzalud pokušavala naučiti. Moja knjiga “Humanizam” će spasiti svijet a to se prema Bibliji očekuje od Isusa Krista.


Ali, zakazao sam po pitanju znanja o drugom svijetu. Ja bih bio jako sretan da me je Bog pozvao i rekao: ”Sine, hajde da popijemo po pivo, imam nešto važno da ti kažem”, jer to bi me nedvojbeno učinilo Mesijom i direktno bi mi dalo moć da promijenim svijet. Nažalost, ja nisam nikada čuo ni vidio Boga ili nisam svjetan da se to ikada dogodilo. U tome vjerojatno leži razlog zašto nisam nikoga uvjerio čak ni da prodiskutira sa mnom mogućnost da sam ja Isus Krist.


I to nadalje umanjuje moju šansu da budem Isus Krist zato što prema proročanstvu, kad se vrati na Zemlju, Isus Krist treba da bude prepoznat brzo u cijelom svijetu. Sa druge strane što će se dogoditi ako Isus Krist dođe poslije nego što moja knjiga promijeni svijet i napravi raj na zemlji? Može li On tada reći: “Oprostite što sam zakasnio, promet je bio užasan, ali ja bih učinio sve isto što i Šarović?” U stvari u tom slučaju On je već zakasnio zato jer je svijetla budućnost čovječanstva, koju bi On trebao definirati, već prikazana ovdje u mojoj knjizi. I zašto bi On uopće došao kada ja završim posao za Njega?

 

Ali ima tu još problema. Muslimani čekaju istoga Isusa Krista koji je prorok a ne Bog. Židovi čekaju Mesiju koji nije Isus Krist ali ima podjednaku misiju kao Isus Krist. Hinduisti čekaju reinkarnaciju Krišne, Budisti čekaju reinkarnaciju Bude koji imaju drugačije metode od Isusa Krista za ostvarenje vrlo sličnih ciljeva. Ko je tu u pravu a ko u krivu? Ja tvrdim da će moja filozofija ostvariti svjetovne ciljeve navedenih spasioca. To znači da ja mogu biti svaki od tih spasioca ali možda nisam ni jedan od njih. Bilo kako bilo, ja sam Aleksandar, čovjek koji će zasigurno promijeniti svijet i napraviti ga prekrasnim mjestom za život

 

Future of Values

The Future of Values

Value is a need. What we need more has a higher value. Values can be objective and subjective. Objective values are correct ones, and they directed us to the right way and make our lives right. However, the man has a tremendous contemplative ability to establish subjective values where they do not exist, and then he has the need to impose them to other people. Such values are alienated from their objective essence and once adopted in society, they direct people to the wrong path. People in the wrong way cannot live well. This is just what is happening to us. To improve our lives, we must make a general inventory of the values we adopted. We need to unmask the alienated values and support the natural ones. That will direct society to the correct path.

 

I will try to explain what it is actually about in an example that compares the value of air and money. Money has market value because it can be appropriated and can realize the power in society, while air cannot be appropriated and it has no market value. But if we compare the use value of money and air, we realize that air is unlimitedly more valuable than money because without air we cannot live.

 

Now imagine two men and let’s say one of them has 1,000 times more money than the other. In a society where money is the accepted value and air is not, it means that the first man is worth 1,000 times more than the other man. In an alienated society, the possession of value gives power in the community, and that means the first man would have 1,000 times more power than the other man. This is wrong, immoral and unjust. However, this is basically what we have today. Today, people value their own achievements far more than the value of air, and it is very wrong because there is no life without air. Since air is not appreciated enough, people are irresponsible to it, and that means they are irresponsible to their own future. If these two men become aware of the importance of air, they would then be able to make an agreement that let’s say the air they jointly own and breathe is worth at least the same as the amount of money they together possess. Then the ratio between the values these two men possess would no longer be 1:1,000, when only the market value of money is taken into account, but 1:3 when one takes into account the use value of air as well. Such arbitration of the distribution of values would be fairer, more moral and correct to the human point of view and in the long run; it would contribute to the protection of air, and that means, of course, the protection of people.

 

Such an arbitration of values might seem as unnatural and impossible to realize. I could agree that such arbitration is unnatural, but it is a necessity because we live in an unnatural society. In this way, the society we live in would begin to learn how to appreciate air as a natural asset.

 

To those who think that such arbitration is unrealizable, I would say that similar arbitrations have been successfully implemented for a long time. Insurance companies can calculate at any time the worth of human life down to the last cent, although it is not objectively determinable. However, such arbitrage is useful because people receive financial support from insurance companies for the death of their partners without which some people would have difficulties making ends meet in the cruel world we live in. Or, courts could precisely calculate how much money the life of a man is worth. It can be calculated by comparing a time imprisonment sentence for murder with the same period of imprisonment for stealing money. There is nothing objective about it, but the benefit of such arbitration is excellent because the fear of criminal law punishments prevents many people from killing other people, what is undoubtedly a great benefit.

 

Similarly, it would be useful to arbitrate the value of the air that surrounds us. Since the atmosphere is not defined as market value, we do not appreciate it enough as a value and relate irresponsibly to it. When people realize that air is one of the highest natural values, then they would appreciate the atmosphere more. When the air becomes a defined value in society, then people will act responsibly to it. It is a condition of our survival!

 

Money has an alienated value because it gives power in society. That does not mean that we should negate the value of money because it would just deteriorate the situation in today’s alienated society. We need to establish such a society that would be able to demystify the value of money, in which the value of air will become higher than the value of money. It is a natural orientation of society that will one day be accepted and direct society in the right way.

 

***

To create a better society, we must define all values that are accepted in society or should be accepted in society. Firstly, it is necessary to determine the values that society holds in common ownership in some territory. These values include land, water, air, and everything that people commonly possess at a particular region, whether they built it or just found it as a value. Then, one needs to determine all the values that people hold in private ownership in the same territory. Why is it necessary? Firstly, to determine what values are. If we define the values that are beneficial to society, people will strive to reach such values for the benefit of the community. This is the path to a good society. Secondly, it is necessary to determine how much of these values each person holds. Man becomes aware of his worth when he compares himself with other people. It is an alienated need but it exists, and that is why we must accept it. Values that every man achieves in his life will be summarized. The sum of these values I call the “productive value of a human” (PVH).

 

The value of the common properties, which include land, water, air, etc., cannot be objectively compared to the value of private properties. Therefore, the value of the common properties should be determined by arbitration. The arbitration will be based on the ratio between the total value of the common property on the territory of some region and the total value of private property. Experts might propose the most acceptable rate. Then political parties may create a range of possible ratio values through negotiations, and the final result may be determined directly by the people. All the people will choose the ratio that suits them the best.

 

It should be noted that a higher value of the common property would reduce the value of private property and vice versa. The mean size of the expressions of all the people would determine the total value of common properties that people together own on the territory of the region. Such arbitration cannot be objective whatever the value society adopts, but it will bring significant benefits to society as a whole because people will begin to appreciate values that they do not recognize today.

 

Given that the common properties belong equally to all people, it is necessary to ensure that all people equally share it. The equal share of the jointly owned property would become a fundamental value of the PVH every human being possesses. Why is this important? With such an act all the people would accept the fact that man is a value and more importantly, he would be equal from birth to every other human being in society. This is an essential condition for the prosperity of society.

 

Every person may increase their PVH if they, by their own free will, sell the private properties they possess to the region they live in. In this way, they would get values in PVH equivalent to the values of companies, real estate, cash, shares, and all other assets that capitalism recognizes as valuables. The owners of private properties may find an interest in the transfer of their private properties to society because the PVH will present a form of humanistic shares of a pooled public company on some territory. An increased value of PVH will bring them a higher income. Also, PVH will be inherited through generations. In that way, the owners of the means of production would accept PVH as an acceptable universal value.

 

If owners of private properties would not be willing to sell their means of production to society, they might be forced to do it under pressure from the higher productivity of public companies. Namely, public companies will adopt a principle of work competition of workers for each work position at any time. There is not a more productive economy than the one in which each job gets the best worker available. Such an economy will achieve the productivity that private companies will not be able to follow and therefore they will be forced to join public companies. Last but not least is the fact that the work competition would enable all the workers to choose jobs they love more, which is almost impossible to achieve now. In such a manner, work will become a direct value, which is very important for the formation of a good and sane society.

 

The productivities workers offer at every work post would not make sense if the workers would be irresponsible for achieving the productivity they proposed. By using the PVH, it would be possible to form an effective system of bearing the responsibilities of workers for the economic productivity they offered in the manufacturing process in public companies. In the case that workers do not meet their productivity proposal, they will bear responsibility by losing an equivalent value of the PVH they own. In the case their company realizes losses, the workers would take their responsibilities proportionally to the numerical value they offer for the total damage of the company.

 

If workers propose greater responsibility for their work, they would in the case of the company’s losses, achieve a more significant loss of the values of their PVH. In that manner, the PVH would ensure great responsibilities of workers in the production process, which is the basis of the prosperity of society. Conversely, if a company achieves profits, workers who propose greater responsibilities for their work will make a higher gain of their PVH values. PVH actually presents the productive power of workers so that it will be a very stimulating initiator in a productive society. I wrote more about it in the article The Future of Economics.

 

The PVH will become a simple and easily applicable measure that presents how much an individual has contributed to the creation of advantages and disadvantages to society and to nature. A greater PVH will give a man a higher reputation in the community. But, considering that some people would probably not like to have their PVH be compared to that of other people, such a value may be kept secret, known only to the owner of the PVH himself.

 

***

A good future for humankind cannot be based only on the value of nature and capital. It is necessary to evaluate all forms of improvements that a person realizes to nature and society, and then add the value of it to his PVH. For example, each award could be evaluated by PVH and then it should be added to the value of PVH of a person who received the award. Conversely, if a man produces damages to nature and society, it is necessary to regulate a punishment for that in the value of PVH. Such measures will be applied automatically whenever needed. Thus, the PVH will stimulate people to do well and prevent them from causing evil. In this manner, the PVH will contribute to the creation of a significantly better future for humankind. This will be better explained in the following examples.

 

If a region has too low a birth rate, for example, people may decide to stimulate parents who want children with some values of PVH. At this moment it may be difficult to expect because right now the planet Earth has a population of 6.5 billion people, and that number is proliferating. Generally speaking, at some point in time, Earth will no longer be able to feed all its residents. Therefore, today we are in dilemma that should not be: either we would limit the birth rate by mutual agreement, or we will reach a point where we would have to kill each other because there is not enough space on Earth for permanent grow of the population.

 

I think that the average restriction on the birth of two children per family is reasonable and it would in by the time reduce the population of planet Earth to a reasonable limit. However, do not consider limited birthrate as a ban of birth, but those families that may want to have more than two children will pay taxation which in the last instance may include the value of PVH. That price may be as hefty as to maintain a reasonable number of inhabitants of the planet. But of course, that is conditioned by the fact the whole world accepts such an orientation. If it does not happen, there will not be an acceptable solution to the problem.

 

PVH will be especially affected by disobedience to the law. If a person acts against the law, they will lose a legally defined value from his PVH. Each crime may be easily judged by existing laws and recalculated into a value representing the PVH. If a person commits a severe crime, he might lose all the value of their PVH and even get into a negative value. Intrusion into the negative value of the PVH cannot be kept secret. If this happens to someone, everyone would know. Thus, the negative value of PVH could become more uncomfortable and painful than prison can be so that prisons will no longer be needed. Each person will avoid committing any crime carefully. If a person still gets a negative PVH, they will try hard to get out of it, and that will only be possible through hard productive work, and outstanding behaviour over a long period.

 

By using PVH, we could very successfully regulate the protection of the environment from all kinds of pollution. It will be necessary to conduct studies and accept regulations of the maximum allowable pollution of air, water and earth. People who violate the environmental protection defined by laws or rules would be punished by losing money and in the last instance by a regulated value of PVH. It is possible in this way to punish entire enterprises and regions or even countries. Such regulation will surely protect the planet Earth from pollution. If the whole world does not accept an effective system of the protection of the environment, then the consequences will be unacceptable for all of the people.

 

***

Society may create a complex regulation that will through rewarding and punishing people by a value of their PVH, impact on building a good society. However, all values cannot be regulated, because people have varying individual needs. Therefore, the value representing the PVH should also depend on unregulated values, based on people’s opinions about the free actions of others. This is an entirely new measure and, in my opinion, the most critical rule of the future. I call it democratic anarchy.

 

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations, wherein every person exercises an equal power in society. It is possible to accomplish it in a manner that gives each person the right to evaluate the activity of any other person. Let each person have the power to allocate a total of say six evaluations per month. Three positive and three negative evaluations or five positive and one negative, etc. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small increase in the total value of PVH to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in a punishment of the same form. Let us say that awards and penalties of such assessment would have an equivalent value of one dollar.

 

When people get such a power, they will become respected members of society, and as such, they will eventually become values in society. Of course, every man will strive to gain more positive and less negative evaluations from other people, and that is why such assessment will direct each member of society to create the highest possible advantages for the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school anymore, bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.

 

The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, President Bush criminally attacked Iraq. Thus, he brought death and suffering to millions of people, including Americans, but Americans not to mention Iraqis were not able to stop him. In a society where money is practically the only accepted value, a person could quickly become worthless in the eyes of another person and because of that, ugly things happen. In a system of democratic anarchy, President Bush could get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and for criminal aggression on Iraq. This would reduce his PVH for the equivalent of 100,000,000 dollars in only one month.

 

On the other hand, I doubt that supporters of President Bush would undoubtedly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. By applying the system of assessment, President Bush would not dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, he would run away from his position very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.

 

Democratic anarchy is actually the most potent tool of justice ever. How come? The answer lies in time. There is a saying: “Silent water moves hills.” The permanent power of evaluation even with such a small force like one dollar will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values. Everyone will try hard to please society in the best possible way. Such a social orientation looks pretty much like love. Love can be defined as indiscriminate care about people, and democratic anarchy will surely bring it. Once love is established in society, it will create a good and sane society. In the future, the system of evaluation will probably abolish state laws, police, and very states. Nobody will need them anymore because a perfect society will be formed.

 

It is very understandable and desirable that the PVH becomes a significant value in society and therefore should be additionally stimulated. This will be achieved by giving people voting power in society proportional to their PVH. In that way, privileged members of society would easier accept full democracy. I wrote more about the new form of democracy and democratic anarchy in the article The Future of Democracy.

 

***

The new system of values will enable the entire productive orientation of society. What does it actually mean? A person will become a center from which everything proceeds and to which everything returns back. Each person will have equal rights of decision-making in society, and therefore the system will for the first time indeed follow the needs of the people. Each person will have free access to any work post at any time, and that will definitely abolish the privileges and all the disadvantages that come from them. The system will democratically establish a very efficient method of bearing the responsibility of individuals for their free actions, and that will contribute to the development of cooperation among people at all levels of human relationships. That will make a good society. Such a life would liberate people from the pressures of authorities, and that will allow the demystification of alienated values that authorities have imposed on people throughout history. The new life will enlighten people. Authorities will lose power over people. Idols will lose importance. They all will become ordinary people. Money and goods will lose their alienated value. People will accept natural values and learn to live in harmony with their own natures. This will create a good society and bring the joy of life.


It can be expected that by the development of natural values, people will cease comparing themselves to other people. Comparison with other people has always been just an alienated need. As a result of enlightenment, a man may one day lose the need to evaluate other people or to be evaluated. People will probably dismiss the PVH as the last alienated value. Then people will pay attention to natural values. Person to person will become the most significant value. Care for other people, sharing with others, helping others, friendship and brotherhood will become the most essential needs of people. The person will find great pleasure in productive activities and in the act of love. They will love others unconditionally just because they are. Love is the final result of the values that I have proposed. Love is the highest value a person can achieve for himself and for others. Once people start loving each other, they will create an entirely new world, values that are in today’s alienated society practically unforeseeable.


February 12, 2010

27.01.2005

O mojem neuspjehu da budem priznat kao naučnik

Zadnje 22 godine sam naporno radio na sistemu koji će promijeniti svijet i napraviti ga prekrasnim mjestom za život ali nauke me nisu priznale. Zašto ne? Možda sam najbolji odgovor dobio od jednog od najvećih mislioca današnjice. Nakon što smo izmijenili nekoliko elektronskih pisama raspravljajući o mojem radu on je priznao: “Možda ste vi potpuno u pravu, ali ja to jednostavno ne mogu vidjeti.“ Nisam ga pitao zašto jer sam znao odgovor. Naime ja sam okrenuo naglavce socijalne principe na koje je on navikao u svom životu. On više nije mlad i zato mu nije lako razmišljati na potpuno nov način. Na kraju, on nema ni vremena za mene jer je potpuno okupiran svojim radom koji ja jako cijenim.

 

Kontaktirao sam stotine stručnjaka na poljima socijalnih nauka i obavijestio ih da sam kreirao sistem koji će ostvariti lijepu budućnost čovječanstva. Oni mi nisu odgovorili. Vjerujem da me većina naučnika nije ni čitala. Oni su u pravilu vrlo zauzeti sa svojim radom a osim toga ne očekuju da bilo ko može ostvariti tako veliki rezultat a specijalno ne anonimus poput mene. Oni koji pronađu vrijeme da pročitaju nešto od mog rada zasigurno vide da moje ideje imaju dobre namjere. Ipak oni se plaše da podrže moj rad u prvom redu zato što nemaju jasnu viziju što će novi sistem donijeti. Bez dosta uloženog truda takva se vizija ni ne može dobiti. Veći trud opet zahtjeva veće povjerenje u moj rad koji oni nemaju.

 

Ali postoji još jedan problem. Naime, moja studija govori socijalnim znanstvenicima da sve što su studirali u životu neće puno vrijediti u budućnosti i to se njima zasigurno ne sviđa. Osim toga oni uglavnom ne mogu razmišljati nezavisno od utjecaja autoriteta jer su na istima bazirali svoje cjelokupno znanje. Oni ne žele ispitati ispravnost stavova autoriteta na prvom mjestu zato jer ih cijene a zatim i zato jer bez istih mogu biti potpuno izgubljeni.

 

Kad moje ideje počnu mijenjati postojeće znanje, socijalni znanstvenici će se plašiti za svoj socijalni status u društvu. Veći strah od toga danas gotovo da ne postoji. Zato, jednom kada moje ideje postanu poznate u svijetu ja očekujem više snažnu kritiku nego podršku od znanstvenika. Kad primim prve napade to će značiti da postajem uspješan. Naučnici ne mogu pobijediti moje ideje. Novi sistem će i njima ponuditi daleko bolji život i jednom kada dijalog počne do promjena će ubrzo doći.

 

Ako se nekom naučniku još uvijek sviđaju moje ideje tada nailazi slijedeći problem: Naučnici nisu nezavisni pojedinci kao što to nisu ni drugi ljudi u ovom našem nazovi “slobodnom” društvu. Oni imaju pozicije, visoka primanja i ne žele riskirati svoj dobar život za sistem koji miriše na komunizam. Ne postoji otvorena prijetnja ali naučnici jako dobro znaju da okolina nije zdrava. Autoriteti su ugradili korupciju i strah u današnji sistem posvuda. To su razlozi zašto ja primam daleko veću podršku od običnih ljudi nego od znanstvenika. Socijalni znanstvenici su odgovorni za svijet u kojem živimo jer su oni ti koji bi trebali dati odgovore za probleme u kojima živimo. Ali većina njih stvarno nema sposobnosti niti namjeru da to učini.

 

Također sam se obratio svim vrstama informacijskih medija uključujući filmsku industriju. Svi eksponirani mediji su javno proglašeni kao nezavisni i objektivni. Ali oni su u privatnom vlasništvu i ne mogu biti nezavisni od svojih vlasnika. Ti vlasnici imaju drugačije interese od mene. Ne treba se čuditi zašto oni ne žele objaviti moj rad.

 

Da li su mediji u državnom vlasništvu ili u vlasništvu neprofitnih organizacija slobodni? U stvari nisu. Pročitajte prethodni tekst ponovo i otkrijte zašto. Ja sam naročito razočaran u male žurnale koji javno traže nove ideje za unapređenje društva. Rezultat je posvuda isti. U medijima se mogu pronaći brojni izvještaji o nasilju, destrukciji, ratovima, terorizmu, i kriminalu ali se ne može naći izvještaj koji prikazuje sistem koji može riješiti sve te probleme. (Nedavno sam počeo ostvarivati uspjehe na tom polju. Možete ih vidjeti ovdje )

 

Također se mogu gledati filmovi u kojima hiljade ljudi biva ubijeno ali se ne može vidjeti moj film “Nebo” koji prikazuje društvo u kojem ljudi vole jedni druge i žive u harmoniji. Problem leži u tome što film isto miriše na komunizam a to je ono što vama nije dozvoljeno da gledate u “slobodnom” društvu. Mi živimo u dubokom izopačenju i media nas uči da budemo još više izopačeni. Može se reći da ljudi koji nemaju slobodu, nezadovoljni ljudi, destruktivni ljudi vole gledati brutalne filmove.

 

Ali zašto ti ljudi nemaju priliku vidjeti moj film koji prikazuje prekrasnu buduću realnost baziranu na čistoj nauci? Takav film bi mogao otvoriti oči ljudima i doprinijeti mijenjanju svijeta. To svakako nije u interesu moćnih ljudi. Jednom kada sistem koji sam predložio bude usvojen, nikome se više neće sviđati brutalni filmovi. Naučnici će ih gledati jedino i to zato da bi ih analizirali i ustanovili u kako bolesnom društvu mi danas živimo.

Da, ja sam također poslao veliki broj pisama filmskim režiserima, producentima, scenaristima i glumcima i niko od njih nije pokazao interes za mojim scenarijem. Pa kako to da niko nije zainteresiran za lijep originalan scenario? Odgovor je vrlo jednostavan; mi ne živimo u slobodi, mi živimo u vrlo kontroliranom svijetu.

 

Nedavno sam sudjelovao na utopiskim natječajima i moj rad nije dobio nikakvo priznanje. Sve utopije su do sada bile pogrešne. Čak i kada bi to bio slučaj sa mojom utopijom, što nikako nije, ona bi još uvijek trebala biti nagrađena zato što prikazuje potpuno originalni sistem koji nudi fantastičnu budućnost čovječanstvu.

 

Povijest čovječanstva je upoznala recimo pet socijalno političkih sistema a ja sam razvio novi, potpuno drugačiji od svih prethodnih. Moja utopija je bazirana na svim pozitivnim principima koje je povijest postavila za utopije. Ona daje znanstveni odgovor na sve socijalne probleme društva koje ni jedna ideologija u povjesti čovječanstva nije uspjela dati. Ona će napraviti raj na zemlji. Pa kako onda nisam dobio nikakvo priznanje? U žiriju za izbor radova su sjedili univerzitetski profesori ali oni nisu obrazložili zašto moj rad nije izabran. Njima je lakše da me ignoriraju i da prešute moj rad ali to nije moralno i oni to znaju.

 

Ne prihvaćanje mog rada je stvarno sramota bez obzira koji razlog iza toga stajao. Praktično osim dvije recenzije koje sam dobio od tri profesora sa beogradskog univerziteta ja nisam ostvario nikakav znanstveni uspjeh sa svojim radom. Ali ja znam da sam u pravu tako da odustajanje za mene nije opcija. Trenutno imam u prosjeku stotinjak posjetilaca dnevno na ovim internet stranicama. To znači da polako napredujem ali ipak napredujem.

 

Future of Economics

The Future of Economics

The market economy is accepted as the most productive because it brings the most significant benefits to society. Employers offer jobs on the free market, and workers provide their abilities to work. By definition of the labour market, employers and workers collaborate for mutual benefits that should optimally satisfy their needs. In practice, it does not happen this way because unemployment puts employers in a privileged position in which they exploit workers.

 

A good economy requires a balance between supply and demand for work, and this will be achieved by creating an equal number of jobs to the number of workers. Full employment will be realized by reducing work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. It will increase the demand for workers in the free market and bring more justice to the economy.

 

However, nobody in today’s world thinks that most of the problems of today’s market economy are primarily based on the underdevelopment of the market economy. The main problem of today’s market economy is not too much market, but rather, not enough market.

 

Workers in capitalism have jobs protected by laws and unions, and that means the jobs in capitalism are privileged, although to a lesser extent than in socialism. A more productive worker cannot apply for a work position already taken by another worker. That is the reason the division of work in capitalism cannot allocate the labour most efficiently and achieve maximum productivity possible. Privileges are the main mistakes of every society. One should protect the existence of workers, not jobs.

 

***

A better future of humankind necessarily requires that workers become subjects with equal rights in the process of production. This will be achieved when all the workers have equal opportunities to choose any job they want in public companies. We need to establish the standard for the selection of workers, and history has already presented that there is no more socially justified principle of employment than hiring the best available worker at every work post.


People are taught by capitalism to love competition, and being the winner brings enormous satisfaction. People do not hesitate to exert an extreme effort to reach such a goal. Why would we not open competitions for every public workplace at any time? The realization of such an idea is just a technical problem, while it will bring enormous benefits to society.


To achieve such an economic system, we need to find an efficient way to evaluate the productivity of work offers, define job responsibilities, and harmonize rewards for work at any time. In short, the workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability and demand the lowest salary should get any public job at any time. It would be nothing else but a developed market of work. However, it will require time for the market of work to develop enough and be accepted by people.


The work competition in the market of work will incentivize workers much more than capitalism can through wages. The existence of workers would never be endangered because every worker will be able to find a job in a fully employed environment. It would establish such a rigid form for worker’s responsibility that no one would dare to offer work proposals they would not be able to meet. The market will also regulate workers’ salaries in the most objective way. The living standards for all people will increase in an unprecedented way. People will be thrilled with living in such a system. The following text defines the developed market of work.


***

There is no fairer or better division of labour than a competition of workers through their labour productivity for any workplace at any time. Productivity would be measured by money earned, by the amount and quality of goods produced, or by rating the productivity of workers by consumers. A worker who offers higher profits, more manufactured goods, a better, cleaner and cheaper production will get the desired job. Comparing the productivities of workers may be complex but also very simple.

 

Such division of labour seems impossible because it has never existed. The reason such a division of work has never existed is nobody believed that it is possible and did not invest any effort in developing such an idea. Aleksandar Šarović has taken into account the potential problems that such a division of work might bring and formed solutions that would solve such problems. Once people accept such a division of labour, it will bring considerable economic benefits to all.

 

Of course, this division of work will relate only to public companies, because if it applies to private enterprises, that would practically mean a seizure of private property. Private companies will continue their businesses as they do today.

 

It will be necessary to regulate and democratically accept a new division of labour in public companies by the law. One day, a proposed division of work will be accepted by society because it is the best possible. The principles of such a division of labour are natural and straightforward.

 

A worker who offers the highest productivity for any workplace at any time immediately becomes a prime candidate for that position, regardless of whether the position is occupied or not. If there is already an employed worker at such a workplace who does not want to leave their job, they would have to accept the productivity offered by the competitors, and in that case, they would continue to hold their work positions. If they would not be able to take the new responsibilities or would not want it, they will immediately vacate the workplace and leave it to the competitor.

 

The existential security of workers is necessary as a condition of stability for society, and therefore the society will guarantee it. In the proposed system, all workers will automatically be economically secured after leaving any job. Losing a job will not create income stress, and workers will have the ability to find a new one in a full-employment environment quickly.

 

Such security will remove the great fear of unemployment that is prevalent around the world. Capitalism finds the primary motivation for work from the fear of economic survival of the workers, and that is the reason it does not provide enough financial security to the people. The new system will build motivation for work from the free choice of choosing work and in the satisfaction that comes from it.

 

***

The advantages of such a division of work will be enormous. The best worker in every workplace ensures maximum productivity for companies and the best satisfaction of the people’s needs. Thus, such a division of labour finds its justification.


Besides, the labour market will give people the freedom to choose jobs that they love more and therefore, they will enjoy work far more than they do today. Work will become a direct value for itself.


Furthermore, the open labour market will eliminate privileges. Today, people might experience a loss of privileges as significant inconveniences. However, it should be said that privileges are one of the leading causes of problems in society. Eliminating privileges means reducing, if not removing, corruption, immorality and destructive issues in today’s society.


With time, people will realize that the loss of privileges would considerably increase the possibility of finding work that will enhance the personal productive power of workers. The power of being develops creativity and brings great and stable satisfaction that privileges could not achieve. That is the reason the proposed labour market will be accepted one day and bring virtually unlimited benefits across society.


***

The labour market will regulate the price of labour. This will be achieved by giving the job with limited productivity to the worker who demands the lowest price for current work and, consequently, a lower income. The cost of ongoing work will be one of the factors that determine the amount of income for workers. In this regard, the market of work will make suitable jobs achieve lower salaries, and inconvenient jobs will be compensated with higher payments. In such a way, a developed market of work will form an objective price of labour and balance the interest in all jobs.

 

Given that the workers will determine the amount of their income themselves, they will also be most satisfied with their earnings. Unions as mediators between the employers and the employees will no longer be required.

 

The work must become easily accessible to all. In order to achieve a balance between labor supply and demand, it will be necessary to equate the number of jobs with the number of workers. Otherwise, there could be an unnecessary struggle for jobs. If the creation of new jobs will not be necessary, full employment will be established by reducing working hours in proportion to the unemployment rate. This policy must apply to both the public and private companies. Such a measure will achieve full employment of workers. In addition, it will reduce the exploitation of workers by employers until it is abolished and will enable the establishment of an acceptable distribution of income for all workers. Such a measure will finally establish general stability in society.

 

***

The system would have no meaning without efficient regulation of workers’ responsibilities. If the workers increase the competitive powers by offering productivities that they would not be able to realize, the irresponsibility of people will make the system collapse. Today, for example, politicians do precisely that, and this is one of the leading causes of immorality and disappointments of society.

 

The new economy will form a very efficient method of accountability for the realization of productivities workers offer so that they would not dare to propose productivities they cannot accomplish. It will be realized in such a way that workers would guarantee the productivity they provide by a new value called “a productive value of a worker.”

 

The productive value of workers numerically presents the total contribution of each person in the creation of values in society. It will be something similar to the shares of corporations. These shares will bring workers a regular income that will, among other things, be proportional to the value of their past work. People will also inherit these values from their ancestors.

 

By using the value of past work, one could form an effective system of bearing the workers’ responsibilities for realizing offered productivity in the manufacturing process. If workers do not meet the proposed productivities, they will take responsibility by losing the values of their past work proportionally to not realized productivity. Also, it will apply to any damage people may produce to society. It sounds complicated, but the implementation of such responsibility may also be very straightforward with the help of democratic anarchy, which is explained later. The possible loss of the value that presents the productive power of workers will prevent workers from offering productivities they cannot achieve.

 

The workers will numerically determine the heights of their responsibilities in the production processes of public companies. The higher accountabilities the workers offer for the desired workplace, the greater right to work they will have.

 

In the case that the company’s revenue increases, the workers will share the profit in publicly owned companies, proportionally to numerically determined responsibilities they propose for their work. Such gain will be expressed in a value that presents the workers’ productive power. And vice versa, in case of production losses, workers who propose higher responsibility for their work will realize more significant loses in values representing their productive power.

 

***

Finally, one should ask whether formal education is necessary for work. Could workers compete for work positions regardless of the level of education they possess? Alternatively, can a person who knows mechanics compete for the job of a dentist? Of course not, but also one should not condition anyone’s employment to be dependent on the possession of diplomas. Firstly, a degree does not guarantee skilfulness. Secondly, conditioning work with diplomas unnecessarily reduces access to desired jobs. The limitation of employment with possession of a degree has evolved to the level of absurdity, which restricts the freedom of labour to a vast extent.

 

Besides, the vast volume of knowledge that the education system imposes usually has no connection with the profession of people. It serves authorities to ensure the survival of an authoritarian system and presents an unnecessary burden that alienates students from reality. In this regard, it is necessary to remove education as a bureaucratic requirement for having the right to work.

 

The new system will develop such a significant responsibility of the workers for the jobs they perform so they will not dare to apply for jobs if they do not have enough knowledge. This means that formal education in the future will still be welcome, but not necessary because the knowledge can be acquired independently or in the best way, through working practice.

 

***

No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job. Therefore, public companies will become significantly more productive than private ones. Under the competitive pressures of public companies, the owners of private companies will try to increase their productivity as public companies do. Still, they could not go far enough because they would not have the operational capabilities to oppose public companies. Given that workers in private companies would not have the freedom as workers in public companies, and would not be able to participate in sharing the profits, they will be less interested in working for private companies.

 

Some regions in the world will one day accept the open work competition because a better division of labour could not exist. The higher productivity of the public companies will force the owners of private companies to join them. The owners of private companies will, in exchange for their firms, get the equivalent value that presents their productive power, which will proportionately increase their incomes in public companies.

 

Also, owners of private companies will find out that large companies are more stable to conjuncture changes, which will ensure greater stability of the economy and the values they possess. When the owners of private companies get the chance to join such a company, they would most likely do so, because it would preserve more of their capital values.

 

One can expect that by the time all companies in a region will merge into one public company, which will operate similarly to big corporations. The company will have a central leadership that will establish effective coordination of work. It will open job positions where they are most needed and will close off ones that are not needed enough. Such an organization of the economy will decrease market competition between companies, but it will ensure the efficiency of production by lowering the level of competition from the companies to the level of jobs.

 

The high responsibility that the new system of work division requires from workers will force manufacturers to avoid economic losses in an unpredictable market by organizing production on the demand of consumers. People will democratically determine the height of taxes and directly allocate the tax fund for various consumer groups of collective consumption. People will directly determine their joined consumption, and this will present the basis of a democratically planned economy. Furthermore, individual consumers will be increasingly required to order their expensive needs in advance. Production based on the orders of consumers presents the planned economy. It is the most stable production possible.

 

Furthermore, great responsibility in the production process will force the workers to establish their mutual relations more on cooperation than on competition, at all levels of production processes and thus, it will contribute to the productive development of society. The free growth of the market economy will, therefore, develop a democratically planned economy.

The complete implementation of equal human rights in the economy should be called socialism. Nothing else deserves this name. Socialism will come spontaneously as the final result of full employment.

 

This is just a basic idea about the future of economics. It can be better understood by reading and analyzing my book “Humanism” available free of charge here: Table of Contens.

 

February 12, 2010

Epilogue

Epilogue

Capitalism has failed

 

Social sciences are based on the authorities from the 18th and 19th century. The father of today’s economy is Adam Smith. He presented the market economy as the “invisible hand” that leads private producers to promote social interest through the implementation of self-interest. Good manufacturers produce goods that are demanded on the market and therefore achieve good prices with which the good producers make a good profit. Weaker manufacturers cannot compete on a commodity market, so they are forced to sell their work to capitalists. In a society where the demand and supply of labour are equal, every worker is well paid.


When labour supply becomes more significant than the request, which is something capitalists may achieve in purpose, then the workers are forced to accept lower wages to survive. That is how the capitalists realize profits through the exploitation of workers. The capitalists would be happiest if the development of the economy ended up with Adam Smith’s theory even though the free market often brings an economic and social crisis. The market solves such crises by creating a painful balance in which the marginalized workers suffer the most. The problem with capitalism is that it values profit over people.


The market competition of private companies has mainly formed a small circle of winners who secretly rule the world with the financial power they possess. This power controls economics, politics, science, education, and media almost all over the world. In such a way, they carry out the exploitation of the whole world. These people hide their power because in that manner nobody can accuse them of causing harm to the world. I wrote about them in the article “Has the Antichrist Come?”


The wealthiest people have set their poltroons at all of the critical positions of society, and so they could easily prevent any positive change in society. They are so powerful that they could remove almost everything that opposes them. The changes in government in the Middle East and North Africa that are occurring right now are their deeds. The wealthiest people have a goal to put these countries and their people under their control. The aggression against Libya is indeed their work because they want to steal Libyan oil. I have no proof for that, but the claim is built on the fact that nobody except them could mobilize the presidents of the developed countries to commit the criminal attack on a sovereign state and then get world media to give full support to this criminal aggression.


As a result of the work of the riches people of the West, a very irrational, unjust and immoral civilization is established, that is most likely fatal for humans. Nearly seven billion people on planet Earth are not satisfied with the way they live, which opens the valves to destruction in society. They heavily pollute land, water, and air which endangers our health.


The rulers of the western world have found that they could no longer reduce the population of planet Earth enough, so that they are trying to reduce the population of the world by poisoning food using the international criminal regulation of food production called “Codex Alimentarius,” established in the year 1963 at the UN level. By its help, they impose rules to food manufacturers throughout the world that, among other things, limit the amount of nutrition in processed foods and encourage or enforce manufacturers to use very unhealthy ingredients.


As a result, people today progressively suffer from serious illnesses that require expensive treatment. This brings enormous profits to the medical and pharmaceutical industry, which is mainly owned by the same group of people who produce food. This develops the cycle that leads to disease and the death of people. Rima A. Laibow M.D. Medical Director of The Natural Solutions Foundation, who dedicated his life fighting for healthy food, stated by citing the WHO / FAO report, that the application of the rules and guidelines of “Codex Alimentarius” at the global level is to cause illness and death of billions of people.


Capitalism is in the final criminal imperialist stage. The right-oriented social scientists, under the influence of the imposed education system and the conservative environment in which they live, cannot go far enough in changing the existing system to make these changes have a satisfactory effect to the improvement of society.


Socialism has failed

 

Socialists advocate equality among people and social ownership of the means of production in support of marginalized workers. On top of that group rose Karl Marx, who is accepted as the leader of the political and economic theory of socialism. He predicted that capitalism will destroy itself through its own inner contradictions. We have just witnessed the falling of the profit rate, which, according to Marx, is one of the reasons that will cause the end of capitalism. In the developed world, interest rates are very low. A small increase in the interest rates may lead to a series of company bankruptcies. On the other hand, the fall of interest removes profit and represents the end of capitalism. Capitalism has a very narrow operational space for its own advancement, and therefore it presents an obstacle for the development of civilization.


Capitalism keeps alive today the lack of a better system that could replace it. It should be thanked Karl Marx who wrongly directed the Left political orientation. By studying the “widest” law of movements in society through the dialectical and historical materialism, Marx concluded that the free market should be abolished because of the exploitation of workers. Antagonism between workers and capitalists, according to Marx, can only be solved through revolution. These are probably the most significant intellectual errors in the history of mankind which have obstructed the development of society.


By proposing the abolition of the market, Marx removed the scale that enables the effective performance of the economy. By abolishing the market, Marx abolished the categories that define the productive producers, quality of goods, demand, objective price and earnings. He actually beheaded the economy. Marx was aware of it, and so he offered a substitute for the market economy with a planned economy based on people’s consciousness. The idea of a planned economy was correct but only if it is democratically formed because it is the only way to follow the needs of the people. Without computer technology, a democratically planned economy could not be successfully implemented, so the authorities took over power over society.


The consciousness to which Marx called upon is an idealized construction that cannot be explicitly defined, and so everyone can interpret it as they wish. Even the worst murderer could find an excuse in his conscience for the crimes he performs. A system cannot be based on idealized values. Idealism is also contrary to Marx’s materialist philosophy.


Lenin used Marx’s philosophy to perform the socialist revolution, but he completely removed Marx’s notion of equality of men claiming that workers have not developed enough knowledge and consciousness, and therefore they must be guided. Under the influence of Lenin, all socialist states typically had the same presidents throughout a lifetime that imposed their wills upon the people more than kings could have done. People who do not have the freedom to bring to life their being powers cannot be productive. And so socialism has formed a very inefficient and unhealthy economy that destroyed socialism and the left political and economic orientation.


Even today a lot of social scientists naively expect a revolution that will change the Western world. Revolution cannot bring a good result because no violence can deliver a good result. Marxism would not be allowed to preach at universities if it could threat capitalism. It even seems to me that capitalism supports Marxism because it puts the Left progressive forces on the wrong path. Capitalism invests tremendous energy in brainwashing the people, after which they are not able to recognize good ideas. If some ideas appear that could challenge capitalism, they are blocked by the economic power of capitalism that prevents the access of such ideas to the public.


So where is the exit?

 

Marx did not see that the abolition of the market economy not only abolishes the exploitation of workers but also the only possible basis for the establishment of a healthy economy. The problem of the market economy is not too much market, but in fact not enough market because the labour market is entirely undeveloped. Marx should have struggled to shorten the working hours of workers proportionally to the unemployment rate, and the market would then align supply and demand of labour and the income height level in the acceptable intervals for workers and capitalists.


The developed work market requires free access for each worker to every public workplace at any time. It is possible to realize only in public companies in the manner a worker who offers the highest productivity, greatest personal responsibility, and the lowest price for work should be hired at every workplace.


The developed labour market will profoundly advance the “invisible hand” which will bring today unthinkable balance into the process of work division and enormous benefits to society as a whole. It will abolish the privileges and exploitation to which Marx complained because no one can exploit the people who can take the position of the “exploiters” at any time. The labour market will abolish privileges and the socially devastating corruption they bring.


The free choice to work will allow work to become a value for itself and people will find far greater satisfaction in work than they do today. Only that can result in the association of free producers Marx called upon. In the end, the best workers at every public workplace will achieve higher productivity than private companies can so that the work market will end capitalism. A developed market is the best allocation of work possible, but also I would add that it is the only good one. It presents the only viable path to socialism and a better society. These are successes that revolution and imposed ideology cannot achieve.


The new economy requires precise monitoring of job offers and of defined responsibilities of all workers, which is not possible to achieve without computer technology. For this reason, Marx was not able to think about developing the labour market. A greater desire than technological capabilities directed by Marx and the Left to the utterly wrong way.


***


The solution for humanity requires a radical change in the whole society we live in. This change must be acceptable to all people equally, or it will sooner or later inevitably lead to discord in society. It must be based on the equal rights of people. It must follow the nature of society and respect the environment that surrounds us. It must effectively meet the needs of individuals and the community as a whole. Dear readers, it probably seems to you that such a society cannot be achieved; however, I have defined it on this web site.


On the path to creating a good society, I had to reject the social sciences almost entirely because they are on the wrong way and are unable to offer a good solution for society. I approached the creation of a good community in the same way as car designers would approach the production of a good car. My method is based on system engineering, logic, and wisdom. I explored how the most rational political and economic input of people would bring the maximum output for society. Fuel for social activities will be based on more economic market, and more political market than capitalism can afford so that it will send capitalism down in history. Once accepted by the society, the new labour and policy market will establish equilibrium in society. The new political economy I designed, will establish people as the greatest values. The new system will in a completely original democratic way, solve social problems of society and make this world a beautiful place to live.


I’ve worked on the new system for 30 years. Social scientists do not accept me because their knowledge is based on the authorities of the 19th century. Can you imagine a supercar designer that follows the design of carriages from the 19th century? Moreover, they do not understand the optimal principles of technical engineering on which my work is based. In the end, I must say that the system I have proposed abolishes the privileges of social scientists as well so that they avoid my ideas even though they are the only good solution for humanity. The lack of support for my work endangers society and prevents the arrival of a bright future for humankind.


Aleksandar Šarović

April 27,.2011

References:

Aleksandar Šarović, Has Antichrist Come?

Dr. Robert Verkerk, Codex Alimentarius

Matthias Rath: Codex Alimentarius Commission – A Threat to Humankind

Dr. Rima Laibow about Codex Alimentarius

WHO/FAO Report, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases

Aleksandar Šarović, Humanism

Aleksandar Šarović, Wisdom

Aleksandar Šarović, The Future of Economics

Aleksandar Šarović, The Future of Democracy

Aleksandar Šarović, The Future of Values

2005.07.07

Let’s be good, sane, and joyful people

There is no other way to reach a good, sane, and joyful life besides accepting the political and economic social system I have proposed in my book, Humanism.


There is no more straightforward way either. My solution does not require rules, laws, consciousness, intelligence, wisdom, authorities nor teachers; it does not require strength, unpleasant work nor any kind of sacrifice. It only needs free people who respect other people. My idea of mutual evaluation will make it happen.


The life in the system I have proposed will teach people how to follow the will of God. You may ask yourself how you would know the will of God? The answer is straightforward; when you make the environment where all the people are satisfied with their lives while living in beautiful harmony, in paradise on earth, that will be the will of God.