Author: Aleksandar

Humanism in Brief

Humanism in Brief

People have unsuccessfully tried to build a good society for centuries. I took the same challenge, was very persistent and finally defined in my book “Humanism” a system that will solve the problems of society through centuries. While working on the problems, I concluded that a good future of mankind requires a total change of the systems we have today. In the future literally, nothing will be the same as today. That is the reason the new system is not easy for understanding neither for applying even though it is much simpler and better than any known model. However, if you invest a little effort in studying it, you will find out how the future of mankind will look like. The following short description of my book “Humanism” is indeed worth reading.


People aspire to a higher power. They define their power by comparing themselves with other people. Such an act is most probably a consequence of alienation; however, it exists, and society needs to accept it. A productive society should develop a productive power of man. We can measure such power. The better defined the productive power is, the better social directing is, and the better society is. We need to create a system that will determine the total value of the productive power of man by means of values of his past work. This value will have to incorporate the values of real estates, money, shares, awards, education and all other values that man possesses. Besides that, it will include the value of labour that brings the rise of economic productivity to the people and all other values that are generally accepted in society and may help the development of society.


On the other hand, if the man produces damages to society such as loses in the economic productivity, or creates inconveniences to the community, or commits any crime, he will lose an appropriate value on the scale that presents the total value of his productive power. The pooling of different forms of values will require a comprehensive study and indeed hard negotiations in society. However, after some time, a new regulated system of values could be established that would create standards for all benefits and damages that man can do in society. Such regulation will be automatically applied whenever it is needed. In such a way a new system of values will be created that will summarize the total value of productive powers of man. Such a system will supplement and enrich today’s forms of values, based on capital with the new humanistic values and thus significantly contribute to the development of society.


It is quite understandable and desirable that such a system of values needs to become very important to society and therefore it should be additionally stimulated. May each man get the voting power proportionate to the total value of his productive power. This measure proposes an unequal voting right of people. However, it would represent in reality a contribution to the development of democracy. Up to now, influential people have used to manage the society alone, although frequently hiding behind formal democracy. Prominent people have never been willing to share their power with the society in the name of the noble idea of equality, as it is contrary to the basic alienated need of the man to achieve higher power in the community. A compromise is therefore needed that would be equally acceptable to everybody. Each man will have the voting power proportionate to his own contribution together with the contributions of his ancestors to the building of all forms of values the society has. It should be said that an unequal voting power would be rather formal because an individual would not be able to significantly interfere in the democratic process without matter what the democratic power possesses. On the other hand, the measure will open the possibility for society to finally really participate in the decision making processes.


The development of computer technology allows the people to participate directly, by way of referendum, in the making of all key decisions of joint interest. All the questions for polls should be created by the consensus of political parties inside the parliament. That is the best way to protect the interests of a minority. The questions that would not be accepted by agreements would not be forwarded to referendums. Each decision may have a scale of values prepared by the parliament, where each voter elects the value that suits him/her best. The middle value of the values expressed by all members of the population, in the function of their voting power, would point to the acceptability of each and every decision in the society. It would be the beginning of a real popular rule, and the best way for determining the needs of the society itself.


Irrespective of how much democracy is developed, it will always have limitations, as it cannot respect, not even take into consideration, the specific needs of individuals. Individuals will still be overruled and may, therefore, be endangered. This fault may be eliminated by the introduction of a new system by which individuals will be able to adequately defend their rights by themselves and protect their specific interests in society. I have named it a democratic anarchy.


Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations where every man exercises equal legislative, judicial and executive power in the society. It is possible to be accomplished in the manner that each man has the same right to evaluate the activity of any man. Each positive assessment will need to automatically bring a little increase in the total value of the productive power to the positively assessed. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in the same form of punishment. Taking into account that all individuals will have the same evaluation right and that they will give their own assessments independently of any written rules, such democracy will assume a form of anarchy. Democratic anarchy will direct each member of the society to create maximal possible advantages in society and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or not enough controlled powers of individuals that originate from privileged statuses in society. The privileged status of individuals in society causes the most considerable inconveniences and problems to society. In this straightforward way, the people will for the first time in the history of mankind realize enormous direct power in the society that will result in very harmonious and constructive social relations.

Economic prosperity is created by proper planning of the production and consumption, and by appropriate implementation of the plan. The best program of production and consumption is to be achieved by the direct order of consumption by the consumers. That is the reason the new system will accept the existing market economy, but also it will gradually implement the development of production based on the direct orders of customers. That is precisely what today’s companies like the best because the known consumption establishes a stable production. The highest level of the plan realization will be performed by a centralized, hierarchical decision-making system because it creates the most efficient coordination of joined activities of the associated work. In practice, a centralized system easily accomplishes great stability in industrial operation and full employment of workers. If the creation of new work posts will not be needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing the work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. Such an economy will be similar to the model of today’s big corporations, but the new economy will achieve significantly higher production productivity and satisfaction of the people than private companies can produce.

 

Such an economy may be achieved only by voluntarily pooling producers into a joined “humanistic” corporation on a certain territory. Inhabitants of such territory who voluntarily surrender their private properties to society will in turn for their ownership realize the increase of the total value of their productive power proportionately to the values of the surrendered property. The value of man’s productive power may be presented as a humanistic form of shares because each man will receive an income for the work performed in the “humanistic” company proportionately to the total value of his productive power. In the new system, the man will realize income proportionately to his own contribution (including also the contribution of his predecessors) to the building of all kinds of values that society possesses. The pooled (associated) economy will offer significantly greater security to individuals, and may also accomplish significantly greater advantages. That fact may encourage the inhabitants of the certain territory to voluntarily pool their private companies into a “humanistic” corporate form. If a private company is not willing to pool into a collective corporation, it will then resume operating as an independent enterprise.


To avoid the privileges of the centralized system of economic operation, which, as a general rule, leads to low productivity, it will be necessary to establish a permanently open labour market. Each public work post will have to be offered to the worker who envisages and offers the highest productivity at any time. Such a measure will probably bring difficulties to the realization because at the beginning it may look risky and painful to the people. However, the possible unpleasant side effects would be prevented by a new regulation of the work distribution. I have to stress that this measure is in first place necessary because it will definitely abolish the work privileges that present the basis of inconvenient orientation and problems to society. Also, the freedom of choosing the work will make the work becomes a direct value. The workers will like what they are doing, and there probably lies the most crucial convenience of the proposed system.


The new economy will necessarily require an efficient system that will determine the responsibility of workers for the realization of envisaged productivity. The system will establish a new mode for bearing the workers’ responsibility by their productive power. The unrealized productivity or its fall will reduce the total value of workers’ productive power proportionately to their responsibility in the process of production. And vice versa, the rise in productivity will increase the total values of workers’ productive power proportionately to their responsibility in the process of production. The system will be based on such strong responsibilities of all the leaders, managers, and workers that they will have to cooperate at all levels of the production processes and establish a high level of consensus before making decisions.


In the case of limited productivity, the work post needs to be obtained by a worker seeking the lowest price of current labour and, consequently, a lower income. Labour market would set an objective measure of direct labour value. Once the workers determine the price of their current labour by themselves, they will be most satisfied with their earnings.


In short, the workers, including leaders will be able to compete for all of the public work posts they want. They will get wanted work posts if they offer the highest productivity for such positions. After that, they will bear responsibility for the realization of assigned productivity with the values that present their productive power. Such an economy will easily become significantly more productive than the capitalist one, and therefore for the first time, the private enterprises will be forced to withdraw and join the new system.


The new economy will develop the market of work and reduce the market of goods. That will contribute to the development of a productive economy and to the rational exploitation of natural resources. On the other hand, the reduced market of goods will not result in diminished quality of products because the consumers will evaluate all the goods. The evaluations will also present the productivity of producers, and therefore they will influence the workers’ incomes. That is the reason the producers will organize the production in some kind of agreement with the consumers. That would be the best production possible.


In such a system the work will become a direct value and the goods will lose their alienated value. In such an orientation lies the bright future of humankind.

The future of democracy will not be based on elected leaders anymore; the people will instead directly create the policy of society, on the first place the economic policy. In the system of pooled ownership of the means of production, the money will also be grouped. Collectively owned money will enable people to involve direct democracy into the economy. Each voter will directly participate in the distribution of the collectively owned money realized from the revenue of the collective. The funds will be distributed for the development of the economy (total amount of money for investments in the economy), for the collective consumption (total amount of money intended for the collective consumption of all inhabitants) and for the individual consumption (total amount of money for workers’ earnings). The elected parliament will previously to people’s decisions decide the possible value intervals of distribution of the collective money. Taking into account that the new system predicts unequal voting power, each voter will actually distribute the total value of his productive power to the voting groups. The total of statements of all inhabitants by the voting groups will form the macroeconomic policy of society. A larger quantity of money earmarked in one direction will reduce the consumption in others and thus will be directed the economy of society. The present-day system of income distribution and establishment of the fiscal and developmental policies of the community will be directly upgraded democratically.

 

The distribution of money presents the core of the social problems of present-day society. We actually do not need democracy anywhere as much as here. If we allow direct democracy to manage the money distribution, we would give a chance and get a solution to a large number of the problems of present-day society. There is no doubt; an equal democratic power would not be acceptable to the people who have dominant force today. That is the reason we need to define an unequal voting power equally acceptable for all as a solution based on the value that presents the productive power of people. If we sacrifice formally equal democratic rights we will get a real democracy, and as a side product, public ownership of the means of production, equal working rights, unlimited freedom of individual choices, and the highest economic productivity. It’s definitely worth it.

 

The described political and economic model will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significant advantages to all the members of society. Generally, the described system will rid the people of the authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, but will at the same time force people to mutual respect. Such experience will demystify the values imposed by the authorities and teach people to live following their proper nature, which will rid them of all types of alienations characteristic for the present-day society. Further, the system will teach people to set their needs following their possibilities of satisfying them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming the destructiveness in the society because the people who permanently satisfy their needs are not destructive. The proposed system promises a natural, harmonious and highly prospering development of the society. The development of such a system will realize, so far, an impossible task: “From everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his needs.” If you read my book “Humanism” that is available free of charge here at least, you will not have much doubt about it anymore.

 

2005.02.01

Anyone can become a genius

A person who gets a good idea and develops it enough so that it becomes recognized as a significant contribution to society is a genius. Great geniuses are those who jump into an unknown space of science or arts and develop an idea that brings enormous benefits to humankind. However, everyone is able to create an approach that may improve society, so that everyone may become a genius. This article explains how that may be done.


People think that a high IQ is most important to define a genius so that a genius is a person with an IQ of 140 or higher. High intelligence may be a good asset of a genius, but it is not necessary. The most important quality for the development of genius is the freedom for a man to do what he loves. In that case he thinks a lot about his activity and suddenly, when he does not expect it, practically from nowhere, good ideas about what he does come to his mind. That is how a genius’ mind works.


Unfortunately, today we live in a society where the freedom of choosing work is not developed. When a person decides what they would like to do, they first have to go to school for years to fulfil bureaucratic requirements for doing the job. That is not necessary. Furthermore, today’s system of education requests from potential geniuses to be able to accumulate large amounts of knowledge. That is wrong. A person who does not critically enough accept information, alienates his knowledge and feelings from objective reality which entirely prevents the development of geniuses. Today’s system of education most likely creates robots rather than geniuses.


Furthermore, when a man finishes school his chances to get the job he likes are not significant because most of the positions are filled. He also needs money for living. The work he has to do just to survive in today’s society will not make him a genius.


A genius does not believe authorities not because they lie to him, well often they do, but because they need to find the truth in themselves. They positively refuse any knowledge they do not feel is acceptable to them. They perfectly feel what they like to do and typically, they do it a lot. That returns them a deep understanding of what they do. Further on, they search for the truth unconditionally because that is the highest value for them. They find the truth by being objective as much as they can.


A genius practices his objectivity in everyday life all the time, and that teaches him not only to develop the knowledge but also to be wise. Being wise is indeed the highest reward that man can accomplish. Only wisdom gives a good life to man and harmony to society. One should not waste life by not being wise; one should practice objectivity.


If a man does not get a chance to do what he likes to do than there is no way he would become a genius, he will become the opposite of genius. He would not work at his job much more than he has to, he would not think about his work, and he would not get good ideas about what he does. He would be impotent and dissatisfied. That would direct him to follow authorities, who are often powerless and dissatisfied as well.


Instead of developing productive power, such a person searches for a subjective escape from his impotence and finds it where our society has established it; in power over the people. Such power is manifested in a higher status in society, in glory or possessing money. Any success in these fields gives an illusion of overcoming man’s weakness in nature. This is mentally a straightforward solution for escaping from the dissatisfaction and brings happiness quickly.


However, the whole orientation of such a man is alienated from the causes that made him dissatisfied so that happiness is alienated as well. The return to reality is unavoidable, and it is very painful. The pain blocks man’s natural senses so that he is not able to feel what is right; his mind is not free, his mind is a slave of greedy passion so that, contrary to genius, such a man cannot produce good ideas. Such a man produces terrible decisions for himself and for society and brings lots of trouble to himself and to the community.


Actually, the person with such orientation is crazy. This definition of craziness is not accepted in today’s society, but that’s precisely what it is. The community with such oriented people always has enormous conflicts of interests among the people and a very destructive social orientation. That is just the world we live in.


As a conclusion, I have to say that it was never easy to become a genius. Until our society changes, there is no help for the people there.


The system I have proposed for the first time offers people the freedom to express themselves and to work wherever they have interests. It will enable people to love what they are doing and therefore possibilities for the development of geniuses will be open. The new system will also require a responsible behaviour in society, which will stimulate developing natural objective orientation of the people and as a result, society will be incomparably better.


Such a society will allow everyone to develop senses, perception, intelligence, logic, knowledge, and to become a genius. Workers will become genial cooks, mechanics, philosophers, scientists, and the whole society will have huge benefits from it.


Humanism for Dummies

Humanism for Dummies

Nobody knows how a good society is actually supposed to look like. We are all dummies in it. I have refused to be the dummy and therefore have tried hard to define a human society.

Humanism necessarily requires freedom. A free man is supposed to decide on everything he wants, but his exercise of freedom must not deprive other individuals of their liberties. Freedom gives people a choice to choose their needs and to satisfy them. Freedom fulfils people’s reason for being and gives them a chance to be happy.


Are we free?


The level of freedom depends on the development of society. Our freedom is not necessarily on a low-level today but indeed is not developed enough either. Politically, our liberty ends right after voting for representatives in councils, assemblies, or parliaments. Once they are elected, authorities tend not to like democracy. The chosen people may prevent us from our freedom, make us powerless and unhappy, and exploit us. We cannot do anything to oppose them besides waiting for years to replace them at new elections.


What is even worse, those who rule society become models to all other authorities in society. As a result, our bosses, teachers, parents, and all other authorities take power in the fields of their activities. Ruling power brings great conveniences so that men work hard to make any kind of control or influence over other people. Everyone accomplishes larger or smaller success in this field. They all prevent other people from developing themselves freely. In such a society people tend to hate each other which make destructive relationships in the community. I have suffered a lot under these kinds of problems, and that is the reason why I have decided to find a solution that will bring freedom to the people.


May direct democracy give a satisfactory solution?


Some people propose that we skip authorities and by the help from computer technology make consensus and/or direct decisions about all the issues concerning our interests. Performing consensuses and direct democracy is a good idea, but it cannot be successful enough alone. Firstly, such decision-making is difficult and very time consuming to give a good enough result. Secondly, influential people do not like democracy and especially not a direct democracy; therefore, they would find a solution to prevent it. Thirdly, making decisions requires a certain level of knowledge, and one could not expect all of the people having it. Also, each society needs to make a practically unlimited number of decisions, and no one has enough time and probably neither desire to participate in all of them. Besides that, democracy is not a perfect solution because it enforces the wish of the majority to the needs of minority and therefore it may take the freedom away from the opposition. Finally, even if democracy solves all these problems, there is not a theory that may effectively protect individuals in society from the ruling power of other people.


So what we are going to do?


Let’s leave the rights of making decisions to authorities when they are required to do them. They may also freely increase their responsibilities, but then let’s make them directly responsible for their doings towards everyone all the time.


How?


Let each man get an equal right to evaluate other people. This right will give power to each person to provide a total of one positive and one negative evaluation (it could be more) let’s say monthly. That means the people will actually evaluate only the behaviour of the best and worst person in their opinion. Let each positive assessment automatically bring some award to the positively assessed person and let any negative assessment results in the same form of punishment. The people will directly determine the value of these awards and fines. We may assume that the evaluation power might be one dollar, but it could be smaller or bigger.


What would the evaluation bring to society?


There would not be rules about people’s evaluation of other people so that it would present a sort of anarchy. The assessment would require people to respect each other and to be very careful with other people no matter what they are doing. It will direct each member of society to create maximal possible advantages for community and to diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. In other words, nobody would dare to oppress other people anymore or prevent them from having their freedom. That will make us human. Today we do not evaluate humanity, and that is a reason we do not have it. When we start to assess humanity, humanity will become a recognized value and society will become significantly better. This is quite simple.


The number of evaluations that individuals will give to other people will be limited. Meaning, ordinary people would not be evaluated much. Most of the assessments would be given to people with extraordinarily positive or negative behaviour and authorities. That would force authorities to make the best possible decisions for society. The higher authorities would receive more evaluations, and that would make them more responsible. Presidents of countries may, for example, receive millions of positive and negative assessments each month so that they would gain or would have to pay millions of dollars each month as a result of their work. That would, for the first time, really establish their responsibilities before the people. That will also make authorities start loving democracy. From now on, they will undoubtedly ask the people what they want, and then they will make decisions to satisfy their needs. They would even work hard to find consensuses among the people about all decisions concerning their interests. Authorities who would not be able to make good choices would leave their positions fast, and only the best would remain. The evaluations will bring considerable benefits to society and a much better future of mankind.


Are we capable of evaluating other people?


I believe the people are generally pretty much capable of making sound judgements about other people and evaluating them objectively. The life in such an environment will teach everyone to be more objective. However, dear reader, you may be very concerned about the capability of other people to objectively evaluate you. In such a case the awards and penalties of evaluations may be reduced down or eliminated. Even a formal assessment might bring good results. Besides that, I believe you dear reader, would like to evaluate other people but you cannot expect it if you do not give a chance to other people to assess you. We all need to sacrifice a little to get much, much more. When the system, by its practice, wins your confidence about the evaluation then the influence of assessments may grow, and that would bring excellent results.


What’s wrong with the division of work today?


I have had a lot of problems with today’s established principles of work division. As a young man, I have believed to be able to make “miracles” with my work but did not get a chance to show it. I was especially disappointed with the publicly owned companies that dominated in the country I lived in that time. Public companies were supposed to follow the interests of the people, but they were not successful enough in it. I asked myself why only presidents of countries faced democratic approval for their work at elections every couple of years, and most other public workers do not? Does it mean that the workers in public companies are allowed to be privileged and non-productive authorities at their work posts?


The work in publicly owned companies generally is more pleasant than the ones in private companies. Besides that, it also provides more decent and secure incomes and privileges than workers in private companies have. Once taken, such work placements are pretty much protected, and unless they are vacant, there is no way other people may have them. That is just not fair to the people who do not have jobs but also to those who do not have good jobs. Freedom of choosing work is not developed anywhere; it barely exists. Most people spend almost one-third of their lives doing the jobs they do not like because they do not have other choices. The lack of freedom for choosing the work is that which really makes our lives miserable. Also, the privileged work positions do not give enough challenge to workers, so they are often bored at work. As a general result, they are not productive enough which makes losses to the whole society. What is even worse, privileged work positions are starting points of oppression inside society and nests for all kinds of corruption which bring huge negativities to society.


So what is the solution?


The already mentioned system of evaluation among the people will largely contribute to solving such problems in the division of work, but besides that, it will be necessary to increase the movement of workers and possibilities for changing work posts. Each man has to have a chance not only to work but also to work what he likes. The first can be accomplished by shortening the work hours proportionately to the unemployment rate. The second can be realized by opening the competition for each public work post all the time. Each job in publicly owned companies should go to the worker who proposes the best productivity any time. It sounds impossible, and I received such comments since the beginning of my work, but nothing is impossible here, it’s only about creating a good system.


Well, that measure requires much more income securities than any existing system offers. Everyone would receive some income. The income height would depend on the value of the past work, on the price of the present work, on the performed productivity, and on the needs of society. Besides the income compensation, it will also be necessary to create a valid regulation of work productivities and work responsibilities that would be acceptable to all. To achieve this goal an entirely new economy needs to be built.


What would we get?


Workers would be able to get the jobs they like. That would enrich their power of being and bring them huge conveniences from work itself. This will make work start becoming a value itself which is a considerable benefit almost non-existent today.


Also, that kind of work division will bring the best production performance possible, that the capitalist production would not be able to follow. Private companies would lose the productivity battle with public ones and therefore will be forced to withdraw. The owners of private means of production will be justly compensated for their ownership so that they would join the public system of production voluntarily.


In case the productivity of production is limited, the worker who asks for the lower price of the present work will get the job. The cost of the current work is one of the factors that determine the incomes height. Better jobs will achieve lower prices of the present work and therefore more moderate incomes, and vice versa. The market price of the current work will establish the righteousness in the process of production and distribution. All of the workers will be satisfied with their earnings, and all the jobs will become equally desirable to workers. Isn’t such a benefit unthinkable today?


Last but not the least, the new system will establish substantial work responsibilities of workers so that the relationships in the process of production will have to be based on a high level of cooperation among the workers and that will contribute to the establishment of harmonious relations in society.


What would we lose?


We would lose the chance to keep our work positions forever, but that would not include the fear for our economic survival anymore. In the new system, there would not be an objective need for keeping work positions forever. This is mainly an alienated narcissistic need. Narcissism in us is the prime creator of unhappiness and destructiveness in the developed world. The new system will help us realize it, and then the new values that the new system offers would liberate us from the narcissistic opinions about our privileged positions. That would release us from unhappiness and destructiveness we might carry in ourselves and therefore from unhappiness and destructiveness in society. That is indeed worth losing.


The system will release us from oppression inside society, from all kinds of corruption, and from all of the negativities they bring. Also, it will liberate us from the opinion that happiness is somewhere else, which is very developed in societies without enough freedom. It will show us that happiness lies in ourselves and will teach us how to find it and how to control it.


Why wouldn’t we accept these ideas?


The basis of the political and economic model described above would improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. In general, this system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experiences will demystify the values imposed by authorities and will teach people to live following their proper nature which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristics of present-day society.


Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the final prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their demands are not destructive. The proposed system promises a beautiful life and natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.


The new ideas will turn everything you are used to in your life upside-down, and that certainly brings the acceptance problem. However, there is no reason for refusing these ideas out of inability to understand the scope of benefits they will bring to everyone and out of fear that comes from this misunderstanding. Right from the beginning, I was confident that these simple ideas would one day completely change the world and make Paradise on Earth. To prove it I have been developing these ideas for the last 20 years. The system I have finally created is the condition sine qua non on any great future of humankind. It is presented in the 131 paged book, “The Humanism” available free of charge here. The book clearly shows the bright future of, and you should read it.


Humanism in Hints

Humanism in Hints

A good society requires power to the people. Such power today almost does not exist, but in the future it will be by today’s standards, unthinkably strong. The centralized political and economic system I have proposed will allow direct democracy to rule the society.


The people will especially be able to directly and very simply create the macroeconomic policy of society. For example, each worker will independently decide how much of their own incomes they want to pay for the development of the economy, the collective and individual consumption in society. The mean value of all the people’s expressions will determine the fiscal, developmental and income policies of the society.


Then we need to form a permanently open work market for every work post in publicly owned companies. The best available worker will get any job at any time. This measure will require a special regulation that will ensure responsibility and stability in the production processes.


Such a work competition will create a much higher economic productivity than capitalism can, so that private companies will be forced to join the new system. They will be adequately compensated for it.


It will be necessary to realize a much higher social security to the people that we have today so that every individual will receive an income. The incomes will be proportional to their contributions to producing values in society, but they will be corrected with some humanist requirements.


The integrated company will develop production of goods by following the orders of the consumers, which will form the most stable, democratically planned economy.

By the regulation of workers’ responsibilities and income compensations for work, all public work posts will be equally desirable.


In the new system, not one public job will be privileged anymore, and that will eliminate immorality and corruption, some of the worst negativities of today’s society.


The system offers a solution to the problems of today’s society through the truly equal rights among the people. The system will give freedom to the people to follow and protect their interests everywhere. However, people will not be able to do it on the expenses of other people anymore, because the system will not allow it.


In the new system, each man will have an equal right to evaluate any other person. The positive evaluations will bring some recognizable awards to the assessed person, and the negative assessment will result in the same form of penalties. Such a simple measure will direct each member of society to create maximal possible advantages for the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a simple measure will form a good society.


By the time, the evaluation among people might even replace the state laws. The remaining will only be natural laws, defined by human nature and performed through the exercise of direct democracy and the system of evaluation.


The system will give the people security and freedom to follow their productive interests in a manner that is unthinkable today. Life in such a system will enable people to demystify the alienated values of today’s society and find where real values are. This way, the people will achieve the knowledge of how to get a wonderful life, love, peace, joy, stability, and harmony of the society beyond the wildest dreams today.


Finally, the system will be accepted voluntarily. A few hundred or thousand people somewhere around the world may try the system and prove what I have just said. They would make a paradise on earth, and then the rest of the world would undoubtedly follow the same direction. The development of such a system will finally create a harmonious and good society with happy individuals.


If you like this short article, I recommend you to read Humanism Clearly, which will give you a clearer picture of the system, and then the other articles and the book.


May 25, 2004


2005.01.29

I am a genius or maybe even Messiah

I have created a new socio-economic system that will make a paradise on earth. I have been promoting my system for 12 years; however, science was not able to recognize it. The next possible step in promoting the system is to present me as a genius or maybe even Messiah. Whoever read anything of my writing can say that I may be the candidate for the titles.


The problem is nobody except me sees whether I am more than the candidate because nobody except me can see the outcome of the system I have proposed. But if my system saves the world one day, then one may agree that I am not understood as a genius or maybe even Messiah, if not, then most likely I am stupid or crazy. Well, it is not possible to prove what will happen in the future; therefore, I will give arguments that present I am not stupid nor crazy.


What I think makes me very special is my independence. I’ve not been able to accept any idea I did not feel to be logic and right. It was never really a conscious decision; it was something built in me. Some would call it laziness. I haven’t had any interest in school, and consequently, I was the worst student in all grades and classes. I tried numerous times to be a good student but was not able to. Being a lousy student was not pleasant at all, but on the other hand, it brought me some advantages that ordinary people do not have. By refusing to accept imposed knowledge at schools I did not load my brain with alienated ideas, I saved the freedom of my thoughts, my natural instincts, perception and senses which enabled me to feel the right direction.


On the other hand when I loved doing something I invested enormous energy in it. That is how I trained my logic and intelligence a lot. That is how I developed abilities to create “miracles” wherever I find an interest.


The biggest recognized “miracle” happened when I won the Yugoslav Architectural Competition for the arrangement of the main square in Zagreb, Croatia. At that time, I was just a bad student in the 3rd year of faculty. The competition was highly attractive, and the best architects of Yugoslavia including my professors took part in it. My victory was, therefore, a great sensation. Being a lousy student of architecture and at the same time winning the Yugoslav architectural competition sounds like I have genius potential. Haven’t I?


If I stayed in architecture that would probably be easier to see today. But there is no pity here at all. There is not much space for improvement for architecture, but philosophy, which I am talking about, is a vast empty space, practically the “vacuum” today. Besides that, philosophy interests me much more than architecture, and therefore, I have created a great job there, incomparably better than I was able to do in architecture. The only problem is people cannot see that. I’ll try to illustrate it by one example; if an ordinary person today sees a mountain of gold he would run to take it as much as he can. Well, I have to tell you that my book is far more valuable than a golden mountain because it can bring a much better life than a golden mountain can, but nobody sees that. It is only about the perception where real values are.


All my life my nature has directed me against streams that are accepted in society. It made me different from other people, and that was not easy to be. I had to resist troubles everywhere. That developed my knowledge and strength to run against streams and finally the results were showing I was right.


That made me pretty confident now to present myself as a genius. One may say a genius is not far away from the craziness, but winning the architectural competition requires a very developed perception and objective ratio that excludes craziness. Three professors from the Belgrade University wrote reviews of my book and confirmed just by writing them that I am neither stupid nor crazy. All of that should make people at least curious when I say the system I have proposed will change the world and make it a beautiful place to be.


Now comes a hard question: Am I Messiah with a big “M,” the one from religion? A year ago, to attract more attention to my work, I applied for the Jesus Christ work position in the article here: Am I Jesus Christ?


In my opinion, I’ve excellently fulfilled the requirements that Jesus Christ is supposed to do on planet Earth. For example, I have explained how a social good can quickly and permanently defeat social evil, something the whole history of humankind was unsuccessfully trying to learn. My book “The Humanism” will save the world and according to the Bible, that is achieved by Jesus Christ.


But, I’ve failed with the knowledge about another world. I would be thrilled if God told me: ”Son, let’s have a beer; I have something essential to tell you” because that would make me Messiah and give me direct power to change the world. Unfortunately, I have never seen nor heard God, or I am not aware of it. That is probably the reason I have not convinced anybody to discuss the possibility of me being Jesus.


And then again it made my chances to be Him even less possible because according to the prophecy Jesus, when returns to Earth, is supposed to be recognized quickly everywhere. On the other hand what would happen if Jesus Christ comes after my book “The Humanism” changes the world and makes it Paradise on Earth? Can He say then: “Sorry I’m late, traffic was terrible, but I would do the same as Šarović did?” Well, in that case, He would be late because the bright future of humankind, He is supposed to define, is already presented in my book. And why would He ever come when I have finished the job for Him?


But there are more problems here. Muslims wait for the same Jesus Christ, but He is a prophet, not God. Jews wait for Messiah who is not Jesus Christ but has the same mission as Jesus Christ. Hindus wait for the reincarnation of Krishna, Buddhists wait for the reincarnation of Buddha who has different methods than Jesus Christ for the achievements of similar goals. Who is right here and who is wrong? I claim that my philosophy will fulfill the secular purposes of the mentioned saviours. That means that I may be each one of these saviours, but also I might be neither one of them. In any case, I am Aleksandar, a man who will undoubtedly change the world and make it a beautiful place to be.


Humanism in Essence

Humanism in Essence

A developed economy of a good society


Companies need to voluntarily merge regionally. All people will receive equally humanistic shares of the public properties, and those who own private properties will receive extra shares for them. I do not claim that it will be easy to accomplish, but there is no other way to a good society. Then will come even harder step, the one which will give the final answer to all the economic problems.


We need to develop the market of work. Each job should go to the worker who offers the highest work productivity, the lowest work price, and the highest work responsibility, at any time. When workers increase their productivities or produce benefits to society, they will be awarded higher incomes and an increased number of humanistic shares. If they do not meet their productivity offers or deliver damages to the community, they will pay the responsibility by lower incomes and losing the stocks they possess.


No economy could be better than the one where the best worker gets each job. Only such an economy could eliminate privileges and injustice. Only such an economy could solve social problems and create a good society.


All the people will directly create the macroeconomic policy of the region, among other things, by deciding how much money, from their incomes, they want to allocate for taxes. Also, people will directly determine how the tax money is going to be spent by assigning money to the groups of consumption they need more. That would be a democratically planned economy, the most rational and stable economy possible.


The new system will bring people closer to their nature and then, in some distant future, all individuals in the region might decide to allocate all their incomes for taxes. Then all goods and services will be paid for from the joined consumption budget and delivered to all of the people free of charge. That would form communism, the best society possible.


I wrote more about the new system in the following articles presenting the future of economics, democracy, and values. My book Humanism presents the bright future of humankind.


May 25, 2004


2005.01.27

About my failure to be recognized as a scientist

For the last 22 years, I have worked hard to create a system that would change the world and make it a beautiful place, but science does not recognize me. Why not? Well, maybe the best answer I got is the one from one of the best thinkers in the world today. After we have exchanged a few e-mails about my work, he acknowledged: “You could well be right, but I simply don’t see it.” I did not want to bother him more by asking why because I knew the answer. I have turned the social principles that he was used to in his life upside down. He is not young, and an entirely new way of thinking is not easy for him. And finally, he does not have time for me; he is wholly occupied with his work that I respect strongly.


I have contacted hundreds of experts in social sciences and informed them that I have invented a system that would provide a wonderful future to humankind. They did not respond to me. I believe most of them did not even read me. They are all very busy with their work, and besides that, they do not expect anybody can produce such a significant result and especially not an anonymous such I am. Those who found the time to read something of mine, see my ideas have good intentions for sure. However, they are afraid of supporting my work because they don’t have a clear vision of what the new system will bring. Without investing a significant effort, such a view could not be received. The more considerable effort requires a larger trust in my work, but they don’t have it.


There is also another problem. My work says that whatever social scientists have studied in their lives would not be worth much in the future. They certainly do not like it. Besides that, they mainly cannot think independently from the influences of authorities because they based their complete knowledge on them. They do not question the correctness of the authorities’ statements in the first place, because they respect them and secondly, because without them they might be lost entirely.


When my ideas start changing the existing social knowledge, scientists will become afraid of their social statuses. In today’s world, a worse fear than that hardly exists. Therefore, once my ideas become known to the world, I expect strong criticism rather than support from scientists. I am impatient to receive the first attacks because they will say I am successful. The scientists cannot win over my ideas. Besides, the new system offers a much better life to them also, so that once the dialogue starts, the changes will come soon.


If some scientists still like my ideas, then another problem occurs: Scientists are not independent people the same way as other people in our so-called “free” society. They have positions; decent incomes and they do not want to risk their good lives for the system that looks like communism. There is not an open threat from anywhere, but they know very well the environment is not healthy. Authorities have implemented corruption and fear in the existing system everywhere. Those are the reasons I receive much more significant support from an average reader than from scientists. The social scientists are responsible for the world we live in today because they are the individuals who are supposed to give solutions to the problems we have. But most of them do not have abilities neither real intention to do that.


I have also approached all kinds of information media including the movie industry. The mainstream media is proclaimed to be independent and objective. But it is privately owned and cannot be independent of their owners. The owners have very different interests than me. No wonder they do not want to publish my work.


Is the state or non-profit organization media free? In fact, they are not. Please reread the previous paragraphs and find out why. I am especially disappointed with low edition journals that publicly search for ideas outside the box. The result is the same everywhere. In media, one can see numerous reports of violence, destruction, wars, terrorism, and crime but one cannot see a story that presents the system that can solve all of these problems. (Recently I’ve accomplished to make some success. You may see it here)


Also, one can also watch movies with thousands of people killed but cannot see my movie Good Communism – Heaven that shows a society where people love each other and live in perfect harmony. The problem is the movie promotes good communism, and that is not what you are allowed to see in your “free” society. We live in deep perversion and media teaches us to be more perverted everywhere. One may say the people who do not have freedom, not satisfied people; destructive people like to watch brutal movies.


But why do the people not have a chance to see my film, which presents a beautiful future reality based on pure science? Such a movie could open the eyes of people and contribute to changing the world. That is indeed not the interest of influential people. Once the system I have proposed starts to work, no one would like to watch brutal movies anymore. Scientists will only be analyzing them to understand in what a sick society we live in today.


Yes, I have also sent a large number of letters to movie directors, producers, screenwriters, and stars and none of them showed an interest. So how come nobody is interested in such an original scenario? The answer is straightforward; we do not live in freedom, we live in a very controlled world.


Recently I’ve been participating in utopian competitions, and my work has not been recognized there. All utopias so far have been wrong. Even if that would be the case with my utopia, which will not, it still should have been awarded because it presents an entirely original system that offers a beautiful future to humankind.


The history of humanity has recognized let’s say five socio-economical systems so far, and I have invented a new one, completely different from all of them. My utopia is based on all of the positive principles that history has established for utopias. It gives the answer to all social problems of society not one ideology before in the history of mankind was able to provide. It will make a paradise on earth. So how come my work was not recognized? Among the selectors of the competitions were some scientists, but they did not give any reason why they did not choose my work. It’s easier for them to ignore me and be silent, but it is not ethical, and they know it.


Rejection of my work is really a shame whatever reason stays behind it. Practically, besides two reviews from the professors of the Belgrade University, I have not reached any scientific success with my work. But anyway, I am positive to be right and therefore giving up is not an option. Right now I have an average of one hundred visitors daily here. That means I am progressing slowly, but I am progressing.