Raspodjela rada

3.1.2.2.2           Raspodjela rada  

 

Socijalizam će uvesti velike promjene u sistemu raspodjele rada. Nedostatak današnje raspodjela rada leži u nedovoljnoj mogućnosti izbora rada. Naime, zauzeta radna mjesta u kapitalizmu nisu pristupačna drugim kandidatima i nezaposlenim ljudima. Takva radna mjesta su privilegirana i u kapitalizmu i kao takva ne ostvaruju dovoljnu produktivnost privrede. Zato će socijalizam uvesti stalno otvoreni natječaj za svako radno mjesto i na svako radno mjesto zapošljavati najboljeg radnika na raspolaganju.

 

U socijalističkoj proizvodnji sva radna mjesta će podlijegati radnoj konkurenciji na tržištu rada u okviru operativne mogućnosti koje svako radno mjesto ima. Radnik koji ponudi najveću produktivnost, odgovornost i najmanju cijenu rada će ostvariti pravo na rad na svakom radnom mjestu.

 

Socijalistička organizacija rada u komuni može slobodno varirati između centralizirane organizacije proizvodnje do potpuno slobodnog poslovanja manjih poduzeća a rukovodstvo komune će odrediti takvu organizaciju rada i moći odlučivanja u proizvodnji koja će donijeti najveće pogodnosti komuni. Rukovodioci komune će organizirati proizvodnju tako da ona ostvari maksimalnu produktivnost. Oni će imati ovlašćenja da formiraju nova poduzeća i da zatvaraju poduzeća koja ne ostvruju dovoljnu produktivnost.

 

Rukovodioci će morati poštovati proizvodne obaveze u kompanijama. Ukoliko se za nekom vrstom proizvodnje smanjuje obim potreba, rukovodioci će tada smanjivati broj radnika koji ih obavlja do mogućeg potpunog zatvaranja poduzeća. Radnicima kojima prestaje radni odnos zbog preusmjeravanja privrede priznaje se da su izvršili ugovorene obaveze pa stoga primaju nagrade za rad kao da su svoje obaveze izvršili i traže nova radna mjesta koja im rukovodstvo osigurava.

 

Rukovodstvo će imati veliku operativni moć koja je nužna za uspostavu brze i efikasne koordinacije rada koja je opet neophodna za dobre ekonomske rezultate. Neki takvu moć mogu usporediti sa moći diktatora ali ništa neće biti dalje od toga jer će oni neposredno podnositi odgovornost narodu, jer mogu biti zamijenjeni u svakom trenutku.  

 

Svaki radnik će na svom radnom mjestu pod pritiskom radne konkurencije nastojati da ostvari najveću produktivnost u okviru radnih ovlašćenja koje njegovo radno mjesto ima. Promjene ovlašćenja na svakom radnom mjestu su moguće samo dogovorom između radnika i rukovodioca sa tim da rukovodioci imaju pravo odlučivanja. U prijelaznom razdoblju rad menadžera će kontrolirati skupštine općine i radnički savjeti, ali će ljudi vjerojatno odustati od toga kada sistem pokaže da je efikasniji bez njih.

 

Privatna poduzeća će nastaviti proizvodnju isto kao što to rade danas.

 

***

 

Radnik koji ponudi najveću produktivnost i odgovornost uz najmanju cijenu vlastita tekućeg rada jest najpovoljniji za kolektiv i za društvo u cjelini i zato treba da ostvari pravo na rad na željenom radnom mjestu. Svaki rad pa tako i rukovodeći se može definirati u funkciji produktivnosti, odgovornosti i cijene rada. Da bi se navedene različite funkcije rada mogle lakše uspoređivati potrebno je za svako radno mjesto navedene vrijednosti izraziti formulom pomoću koeficienata: 

Formula će zahtijevati usklađivanje moći utjecaja svake varijable. Poslije toga one će dati vrijednost koja ukazuje na konkurentsku sposobnost svakog radnika za željeno radno mjesto. Svaki radnik sam predlaže veličine koeficienata izražene brojevima prema vlastitim sposobnostima za radno mjesto koje želi obavljati. Radnik koji ponudi veću produktivnost i veću odgovornost rada uz manju cijenu tekućeg rada će izboriti pravo na rad na željenom radnom mjestu. Osim toga veći ostvareni K-radne konkurentnosti omogućava svakom radniku da zauzme radno mjesto drugog radnika uz obavezu da preuzme sve radne obaveze i odgovornosti takvog radnog mjesta.  

 

Produktivnost rada 

 

Svaki rad ima svoju mjeru produktivnosti. Danas se mjera produktivnosti na najobuhvatniji i najefikasniji način može utvrditi novčanom dobiti na tržištu. Novčana dobit na slobodnom tržištu u sebi sadrži sve elemente produktivnog poslovanja kao što su količina i kvalitet rada, ekonomičnost, racionalnost, korisnost, uslužnost itd. Novčana dobit je društvena ocjena uspješnosti poslovanja samostalnih radnika i poduzeća. Međutim, unutar poduzeća nema robno novčanih odnosa pa se produktivnost treba iskazati količinom i kvali­tetom proizvedene robe i usluga u određenom vremenu. 

 

Tamo gdje nije moguće egzaktno utvrditi produktivnost rada proizvedenom robom ili tamo gdje bi utvrđivanje produktivnosti zahtjevalo isuviše vremena, produktivnost se može iskazati ocjenom vrijednosti rezultata rada. Neka postojeća produktivnost izražena ocjenom za svako radno mjesto ima vrijednost 1 (jedan). Radnik koji misli da može povećati produktivnost na određenom radnom mjestu za 10% će povećati 10% ponudu vlastite produktivnosti pa će njegova predviđena produktivnost imati vrijednost 1,1. Ocjena predviđene produktivnosti rada može zamijeniti sve ostale oblike vrednovanja produktivnosti rada. Svaki radnik može svoj K-produktivnosti prikazati formulom:  

Predviđena produktivnost izražena novcem, proizvodima ili ocjenom rada, ukoliko bude identična sa postojećom formirati će koeficienat veličine 1. Koeficijent veći od 1 će ukazivati na produktivniji rad od postojećeg. Radnik koji ponudi veći koeficijent će ostvariti pravo na rad na željenom radnom mjestu. 

Po završetku perioda obračuna, potrebno je valorizirati ostvarenu produktivnost da bi se ustanovila uspješnost radne ponude radnika. Ostvarena produktivnost se može prikazati koeficijentom pomoću formule:  

Ostvarena produktivnost izražena novčanom dobiti na tržištu može efikasno prikazati uspješnost poslovanja pa stoga ostali oblici vrednovanja produktivnosti nisu potrebni. Međutim, navedeni oblik vrednovanja rada primjenjljiv je samo za samostalne poduzetnike i rukovodstvo udruženog rada u privredi.

 

U neposrednoj proizvodnji roba, produktivnost se može utvrditi omjerom ostvarene i predviđene količine proizvoda i usluga. Tamo gdje se produktivnost ne može egzaktno izraziti količinom proizvoda i usluga ili gdje bi utvrđivanje količine zahtjevalo isuviše vremena uvodi se ocjenjivanje posredne vrijednosti rada.  

 

Ocjenu rezultata rada radnika mogu davati upravni odbori, radnička vijeća i sami radnici međusobno. Upravni odbori i radnička vijeća poduzeća će pratit i ocjenjivati operativna poboljšanja i padove radnika. Njihove ocjene će pokazati ostvarenu produktivnost radnika. Međutim, radnici najbolje znaju kvalitetu i nedostatke jedni drugih, pa bi najbolje ocjene radnika dali radnici. Oni bi trebali dobiti jednako pravo da anonimno ocjenjuju rad nekoliko drugih kao odgovor na njihovu predviđenu produktivnost.

 

Dobijena ocjena će biti potvrda ili negacija predviđene ocjene koju je svaki radnik sam sebi dao kao ponudu svoje produktivnosti. Predložena subjektivna ocjena produktivnosti radnika će dobiti svoju potvrdu ili negaciju što će utjecati na razvoj objektivnih kategorija vrijednosti u proizvodnji. Valorizacija rada je nužna ne samo za utvrđivanje odgovornosti radnika za ostvarenu produktivnost, već i kao određenje koje definira priznavanje čovjekove bivstvene moći. Čovjeku treba objektivna skala vrijednosti da bi objektivno mogao spoznati sebe i mogućnost vlastitog usavršavanja. 

 

Koeficijent ostvarene produktivnosti koji ost­vari vrijednost veću od 1 (jedan) će predstavljati veću ostvarenu produktivnost od predviđene pa će ostvariti i viši dohodak. I obratno koeficijent ostvarene produktivnosti manji od 1 (jedan) će predstavljati manju ostvarenu produktivnost od predviđene pa će i dohodak biti manji. 

 

Treba naglasiti da je prikazano knjigovodstvo bazirano na kapitalističkom obliku vođenja ekonomije koje je prilično zahtjevno. Ono je tako prikazano da bi moglo objasniti novu ekonomiju ljudima koji razmišljaju na tradicionalan način, Socijalistička ekonomija će prihvatiti princip demokratske anarhije koja će primijeniti značajno jednostavnije vođenje knjigovodstva nego u kapitalizmu, dok ni u čemu neće zaostajati za njim.

 

Odgovornost radnika

 

Bez definiranog načina podnošenja odgovornosti, radnici ne bi imali obavezu da ostvare predloženu produktivnost pa bi i njihovo izjašnjavanje u radnoj konkurenciji bilo preuveličano a radni učinci ih ne bi mogli slijediti. Takva neodgovornost bi mogla imati katastrofalne posljedice za ekonomiju. Zato je potrebno formirati sistem pomoću kojeg će svaki radnik podnositi odgovornost za ostvarenje ponuđene produktivnosti. Ona će se bazirati na koeficijentu ostvarene produktivnosti. Sistem podnošenja odgovornosti treba da bude temeljit, višeslojan i efikasan.

 

Svaki radnik mora podnositi odgovornost za svoj rad a kako je njegov rad neotuđiv od rada kolektiva tako podnosi odgovornost i za produktivnost kolektiva. Pitanje visine odgovornosti koju radnik preuzima može se riješiti pomoću koeficienta odgovornosti.  

 

Neka prosječni koeficient odgovornosti poprimi vrijednost broja 1 (jedan). Neka interval između minimalne i maksimalne odgovornosti bude od 0.1 do 10. Odgovornost utvrđena vrednošću 0.1 bi bila najmanja odgovornost, a odgovornost utvrđena brojem 10 neka bude maksimalna odgovornost. Neka svaki radnik sam utvrdi visinu svoje odgovornosti koju može preuzeti za svoj rad i za rad kolektiva izraženu koeficijentom. Veći koeficijenat odgovornosti treba da daje veću radnu konkurentnost na tržištu rada za obavljanje posla na svakom javnom radnom mjestu i obratno. 

 

Radnici će primarno podnosity odgovornost u procesu proizvodnje pomoću svojih bodova minulog rada. Ukupna količina bodova minulog rada svih radnika komune treba da bude jednaka ostvarenom dohotku komune. Privredna poduzeća koja ostvare porast produktivnosti će ostvariti višak novčanih sredstava koja će u obliku bodova minulog rada raspodjeliti radnicima proporcionalno njihovom koeficientu odgovornosti. S druge strane, ako poduzeća izgube novac, on će se oduzeti od bodova minulog rada svih radnika proporcionalno koeficijentu njihove odgovornosti.

 

Poduzeća u neprofitnim djelatnostima kao što su uprava, zdravstvo, obrazovanje i u ostalim djelatnostima koje komuna putem rukovodstva i skupštine takvima proglasi, ne ostvaruju neposredan dohodak na tržištu već ga ostvaruju izdvajanjem iz dohotka komune. U neprofitnim poduzećima mjera vrijednosti rezultata rada se treba temeljiti na ostvarenoj ocjeni zadovoljstva korisnika usluga. Veća ocjena dobijena od korisnika usluga će biti ekvivalent većoj novčanoj dobiti profitnih privrednih poduzeća. Na taj način će neprofitna privredna poduzeća dobiti mjeru za produktivnost i odgovornost za produktivnost djelovanja.  

 

Sistem treba da u potpunosti izjednači mjeru uspješnosti poslovanja profitnih i neprofitnih poduzeća. Primjenom matematičkih koeficijenata moguće je uspoređivati novčanu dobit profitnih poduzeća i ostvarenu produktivnost neprofitnih poduzeća izraženih u bilo kojoj veličini pa tako i u ocjeni produktivnosti.  

 

Nezaposleni ljudi će također imati K-odgovornosti koji određuje rukovodstvo a usvaja skupština komune. Po toj osnovi i oni mogu dobijati ili gubiti bodove minulog rada ali u manjoj količini od radnika u komuni. Na taj način će kompletno stanovništvo komune podnositi odgovornost za produktivnost komune.  

 

Obzirom da proizvodnja, odnosno novčana dobit na tržištu može iskazati oscilacije u periodima obračuna, zajedničku odgovornost pomoću bodova minulog rada treba vezati za period u kojem poslovanje poduzeća iskazuje objektivne pokazatelje uspješnosti. Period obračuna može biti različit za različite djelatnosti ali se može uzeti da će u periodu od godinu dana proizvodnja koja u mjesečnom obračunu daje veće ili manja odstupanja dati realističan iskaz produktivnosti. 

 

Kada je poznata količina bodova minulog rada koje svako poduzeće u cjelini ostvaruju ili gube, tada se vrši raspodjela ili oduzimanje tih bodova proporcionalno koeficientima odgovornosti radnika. Primjenom kompjutorske tehnologije u periodu obračuna raspodjela bodova minulog rada kao i njihovo oduzimanje može se izračunati za neograničeni broj radnika pomoću formule:

 

                Radnik-1 : Radnik-2 : Radnik-3 :…. : Radnik-n =
                K-odgov.-1 : K-odgov.-2 : K-odgov.-3 : …. : K-odgov.-n

 

 Tada kompjuteri mogu brzo i lako izbaciti rezultate u obliku: 

 

                Radnik-1 = +/- Količina bodova-1
                Radnik-2 = +/- Količina bodova-2
                Radnik-3 = +/- Količina bodova-3
                …
                Radnik-n = +/- Količina bodova-n 

 

Dobijene vrijednosti su različite brojčane veličine koje prikazuju bodove minulog rada koji se dodaju (ili oduzimaju) količinama bodova minulog rada koje radnici posjeduju.

 

Primjer: Radnik koji je izrazio koeficijenat odgovornosti 1.5 ostvariti će po funkciji odgovornosti tri puta veći dobitak bodova minulog rada od rad­nika koji izjasni koeficijenat odgovornosti 0.5 u slučaju porasta dobiti poduzeća i tri puta veći gubitak bodova minulog rada u slučaju gubitka poduzeća. 

 

U predloženom sistemu svaki radnik podnosi odgovornost za rad kolektiva proporcionalno iskazanoj veličini koeficienta odgovornosti. Na taj način radnici postaju aktivni kreatori vlastitih pogodnosti i nepogodnosti a nisu više pasivni članovi kolektiva. Takva odgovornost će zahtjevati od radnika da se upoznaju sa zakonitostima poslovanja, što će biti veliki doprinos prevladavanja otuđenja u procesu proizvodnje. 

 

U kapitalističkom obliku proizvodnje, veći profit je u pravilu ve­zan za veći rizik ulaganja novca. Novi sistem uvodi K-odgovornosti sa kojim radnici mogu po svojoj volji špekulirati o veličini preuzetog rizika za uspješnost zajedničke proizvodnje. Međutim, takva špekulacija je neotuđiva od neposrednog rada radnika što će doprinijeti boljem poznavanju ekonomskog procesa koji će opet doprinijeti porastu neposredne odgovornosti u proizvodnji. Veća odgovornost zahtjeva viši stupanj uzajamnog povjerenja, zajedništva što će donijeti veću produktivnost i prosperitet društva. Veći stupanj odgovornosti će formirati radnici koji su u većoj mjeri upoznati sa tokovima privređivanja, koji imaju veće povjerenje u sebe i kolektiv u cjelini.

 

 *** 

 

Osim kolektivne odgovornosti radnika, potrebno je definirati i osobnu odgovornost radnika u proizvodnim procesima. Radnici pojedinačno mogu proizvesti koristi i štete u zajedničkom procesu proizvodnje. Za stvaranje produktivne orijentacije društva koja će motivirati produktivan rad i spriječiti neodgovornost u proizvodnim procesima, biti će potrebno utvrditi principe nagrađivanja i sankcioniranja radnika određenim brojem bodova minulog rada. Takvo nagrađivanje i sankcioniranje radnika trebaju provoditi arbitražna povjerenstva poduzeća u skladu sa usvojenim propisima.

 

Ipak, vjerojatno nabolji način utvrđivanja pojedinačne odgovornosti će se ostvariti međusobnim ocjenjivanjem rada radnika kroz demokratsku anarhiju. Demokratska anarhija bi nagrađivala dobre i kažnjavala loše radnike u vrijednosti koeficijenta odgovornosti koji su radnici predložili za svoj rad. Neka svaka pozitivna ocjena donese radniku bodove minulog rada u vrijednosti samostalno iskazanog koeficijenta odgovornosti. I obratno, neka svaka negativna ocjena oduzme radniku bodove minulog rada u funkciji samostalno iskazanog koeficijenta odgovornosti.  

 

Takav sistem ocjenjivanja vrijednosti rada i podnošenja odgovornosti zastupa u najširem smislu sve utjecaje koje rad donosi. On može nagraditi svaku pogodnost i sankcionirati svaku nepogodnost koju radnik učini drugom radniku ili u proizvodnji. Svaki radnik će paziti da svojim djelovanjem ne nanosi nepogodnosti ili da nanosi što manje nepogodnosti bilo kom drugom radniku kao i u proizvodnom procesu. To će predstavljati suštinu produktivne društvene orijentacije koja će unapređivati međuljudske odnose i proizvodnnju.

 

Primjeri: Potpuno proizvoljno pretpostavimo da je prosječan dohodak u komuni 100.000 novčanih jedinica, tada je i prosječna količina bodova minulog rada 100.000 bodova. Ukoliko radnik ne može preuzeti veliku odgovornost za svoj rad tada će se izjasniti mali koeficijent odgovornosti. Kada bi predložio vlastiti koeficijenat odgovornosti u visini 0,1 tada bi mu jedan pozitivan glas donio 0,1 bod, a pet negativnih glasova -0,5 boda. Tada će u prvom slučaju radnik sa prosječnom količinom bodova minulog rada imati 100.000,1 a u drugom slučaju 99.999,5 bodova.

 

Radnik koji želi povećati svoju radnu konkurentnost može povećati i koeficijenat odgovornosti. Koeficijenat odgovornosti u veličini 1,2 će donijeti radniku koji dobije deset pozitivnih ocjena 12 bodova. Ukoliko isti radnik posjeduje 100.000 bodova minulog rada, poslije ocjenjivanja će imati 100.012 bodova. Ako umjesto toga dobije 20 negativnih glasova oduzeti će mu se 24 boda pa će imati ukupno 99.976 bodova. Obzirom da se obračun vrši svaki mjesec, takav sistem međusobnog ocjennjivanja radnika će zahtjevati vrlo odgovoran rad radnika. Treba ponoviti da su primjeri potpuno proizvoljni i da provođenje takvih mjera u praksi zahtijeva široku studiju i društvenu prihvatljivost.

 

Jednom kad se demokratska anarhija prihvati u društvu radnici više neće morati nuditi svoju produktivnost. Pretpostavit će se da njihova produktivnost treba zadovoljiti potrebe potrošača i kolektiva u udruženom radu. Cijena rada bit će standardizirana na isti način na koji se standardiziraju cijene robe danas na tržištu. Praktično, najveća odgovornost koju svaki radnik nudi za bilo koji posao će biti glavni ako ne i jedini pokazatelj produktivne moći radnika. Fino ugađanje odgovornosti radnika će se brzo i efikasno odrediti kroz demokratsku anarhiju kao što je to prikazano u gornjem primjeru.

 

Prihvaćanjem demokratske anarhije, produktivnost koju nude političari i menadžeri gubi smisao. Ako ljudi budu smatrali da njihov rad nije zadovoljavajući, onda će oni dobiti loše ocjene bez obzira kakvu su produktivnost ponudili i ostvarili ili jesu li pobijedili na izborima.

 

***

 

U ovakvom sistemu je nesumljivo da će svaki radnik biti oprezan prije nego što izjasni vlastitu produktivnost i stupanj odgovornosti. Taj oprez će spriječiti hitrovito izjašnjavanje i voluntarizam koji su opasni u proizvodnim procesima. Sistem će omogućiti svakom radniku da spozna vlastitu moć, da djeluje u skladu sa vlastitom moći i tako zadovoljava vlastite potrebe. Taj čin je uvjet konstruktivne orjentacije društva u cjelini.

 

Nezaposleno stanovništvo također treba podnositi odgovornost za svoje djelovanje, ali obzirom da ne rade, rukovodstvo komune će odrediti njihov koeficijent odgovornosti. Oni će vjerojatno podnositi odgovornosti u visini najniže odgovornosti u proizvodnim procesima. Međutim, njihova društvena odgovornost će biti dovoljna da se ponašaju sa poštovanjem prema društvu i njegovoj okolini. To znači da nezaposleni ljudi također mogu biti nagrađeni i kažnjeni od strane članova zajednice za svoje ponašanje u zajednici. Oni će dobijati i gubiti bodova minulog rada u vrijednosti minimalnog koeficijenta odgovornosti u komuni. Na taj način će cjelokupno stanovništvo komune imati pravo ocjenjivati ponašanje drugih ljudi i biti ocjenjivano od strane drugih ljudi za svoje ponašanje. To će značajno doprinijeti boljitku društva.

 

Po obavljenom godišnjem obračunu, ukupna količina bodova minulog rada svih stanovnika komune treba da bude jednaka ostvarenom dohotku komune. Poslije svih dodavanja i oduzimanja bodova minulog rada vezanih za individualnu odgovornost svih stanovnika, potrebno je izvršiti poravnanje ukupne količine bodova minulog rada svih ljudi sa ostvarenom dobiti komune. Konačno poravnanje se može vršiti proporcionalno koeficijentu odgovornosti stanovnika komune na isti način kao što se obračunavaju nagrade i kazne u poduzećima.  

Cijena tekućeg rada 

 

Na kraju, konkurensku snagu u izboru rada formira cijena tekućeg rada. Cijena tekućeg rada ovisi o svim pogodnostima i nepogodnostima koje rad donosi kod ostvarenja potrebne produktivnosti u odnosu na pogodnosti i nepogodnosti drugih oblika rada ili stanja provedenog izvan rada.  

 

Sistem predviđa da radnici sami odrede cijenu tekućeg rada koeficijentom u intervalu vrijednosti dva broja koji mogu biti u rasponu od recimo 0,1 do 10. Cijena prosječnog tekućeg rada će imati vrijednost 1, dvostruko nepogodniji rad će imati cijenu u veličini broja 2 a dvostruko pogodniji rad će imati cijenu u veličini broja 0,5.

 

Veću radnu konkurentnost će ostvariti radnik koji za jednaku produktivnost zahtjeva manju cijenu tekućeg rada na tržištu rada. Sistem radne konkurencije će za svako radno mjesto formirati graničnu vrijednost cijene tekućeg rada koja će biti prihvaćena kao objektivna. Takva cijena tekuđeg rada će biti jedna od osnova pravedne raspodjele dohodaka. Takva cijena rada će biti jedna od osnova izgradnje pravednog društva.

 

 ***

 

Kapitalizam će se suočiti sa snažnim političkim zahtjevom za smanjenjem radnog vremena radnika dok se ne osigura puna zaposlenost. To će zaposliti sve ljude koji žele da rade, a to znači da nepovoljni oblik nezaposlenosti koji postoji u kapitalizmu više neće postojati. Skraćivanje radnog vremena će povećati potražnju za radnicima. Povećana potražnja za radnicima će povećati plaće radnika i smanjivati profite poslodavaca. Poslodavci će gubiti privilegije pa će kapital gubiti značaj. Vlasnici niskoprofitnih tvrtki suočenih s većim troškovima rada mogli bi biti zainteresirani za prodaju svojih tvrtki komuni.

 

Vlasnici privatnih kompanija koje ostvaruju visoki profit neće biti zainteresirani za prodaju svoje imovine komuni. Takve kompanije će nastaviti svoju proizvodnju kao što to rade danas. Socijalizam se može početi realizirati čak i ako ni jedan privatni poduzetnik ne udruži svoje vlasništvo u komunu. Tada će se socijalistički sistem bazirati na kompanijama i ustanovama koje su u vlasništvu komune. Socijalizam će u njima pokazati značajan napredak privređivanja.  

 

Socijalizam će uvesti takmičenje radnika za svako javno radno mjesto. Ni jedna ekonomija ne može biti produktivnija od one u kojoj svaki posao dobija najbolji raspoloživi radnik. Privatne kompanije neće moći dovoljno efikasno alocirati rad radnika da bi mogle konkurirati javnim kompanijama pa će javna poduzeća postati produktivnija i profitabilnija od privatnih. Povrh svega, privatna poduzeća neće moći prihvatiti sudjelovanje radnika u podjeli profita kao što će to moći radnici u javnim poduzećima. Radnici će biti manje zainteresirani za rad u privatnim poduzećima. Kao posljedica, rad u privatnim kompanijama neće biti atraktivan radnicima kao rad u javnim kompanijama.

 

Manja produktivnost privatnih kompanija i manja zainteresiranos radnika da rade u njima predstavljaju kraj kapitalizma. Već na početku implementacije socijalističkog oblika proizvodnje u javnim kompanijama, mnoge privatne kompanije u komuni će pokazati interes da se pridruže javnim kompanijama. Vlasnici privatnih kompanija će u zamjenu za svoje vlasništvo dobiti protuvrijednost u bodovima minulog rada koji će im donijeti proporcionalno veći dohodak u javnim kompanijama. Uz to vlasnici privatnih kompanija će uvidjeti da je socijalizam stabilniji na promjene konjunkture što će osigurati veću stabilnost vrijednosti koje posjeduju. Kad bi se vlasnici privatnih kompanija danas mogli pridružiti socijalizmu, oni bi to najverojatnije i učinili jer bi tako više sačuvali vrijednost svog kapitala u učestalim problemima kapitalizma.

 

Komuna treba omogućiti stanovnicima i da prodaju svoje bodove minulog rada u zamjenu za novac. Tako bi bodovi minulog rada mogli postati oblik humanističkih akcija u koje će stanovništvo komune imati povjerenja. U takvom sistemu privatni poduzetnici mogu nalaziti veliki interes u prodaji svog vlasništva komuni. Sa vremenom komuna može kupiti burzovne akcija, nekretnine i  ostale vrijednosti koje posjeduju stanovnici komune. Kada vlasnici privatnog kapitala prepuste svoje vlasništvo društvu njihova količina bodova minulog rada će zamijeniti vrijednosti kapitalističkog sistema i nadopuniti ih novim vrijednostima koje će omogućiti dalji prosperitet društva.  

 

***

 

Ljudi su oduvijek bili pritisnuti autoritativnim silama koje su im donosile osjećaj inferiornosti. Iz toga proizlazi reakcija koja stvara potrebu za superiornošću nad drugim ljudima. To je sve pogrešno ali obzirom da je takvo ponašanje ugrađeno u ljude ono se mora prihvatiti kao realno stanje koje će socijalizam prevladati. Ljudi imaju potrebu ispoljavanja svoje moći kroz takmičenja. Biti pobjednik čovjeku predstavlja veliku vrijednost, jer tako dokazuje svoju moć. Pobjeda kompenzira subjektivni doživljaj nemoći.

 

Radna konkurencija predstavlja stalnu borbu za ostvarenje veće produktivnosti. To je borba koja omogućava svakom radniku da bude najbolji na svom polju rada. To će biti oblik kompenzacije nemoći uzrokovane autoritativnim utjecajima. Ljudi će na svojim radnim mjestima prezentirati svoju takmičarsku moć. Ta moć će biti priznata od društva i sigurno će donositi zadovoljstvo radnicimai. Nesumljivo je da je takmičenje u radu prihvatljivije od svih ostalih oblika takmičenja i zato što donosi društveno korisne rezultate rada i doprinosi blagostanju društva. 

 

U socijalizmu rad više neće biti privilegiran. Ukinute privilegije će rušiti vlast čovjeka nad čovjekom,  odnosno mehanizam eksploatacije ljudi koja je osnova problema u društvu. U socijalizmu će se svi radnici nalaziti u ravnopravnom položaju u raspodjeli rada i rezultata rada. Svatko će moći birati posao koji voli raditi, i biće zadovoljan sa ostvarenm dohotkom.

 

Radna konkurencija neće nikom dozvoliti da spava na lovorikama. Može se sa vremenom očekivati zamor i zasićenje od preintenzivnog djelovanja na širokom društvenom planu pa će posustati i ambicije. Takva orijentacija će formirati ravnotežu između čovjekovih prirodnih potreba i mogućnosti. Sloboda u socijalizmu će omogućiti radnicima da sa interesom prate radne procese, razvijaju kritički stav i da djeluju oslanjajući se na vlastite snage. Taj put će omogućiti svakom radniku da ispita valjanost premisa koje su ga usmjeravale pri formiranju potreba. To će doprinijeti formiranju objektivnih vrijednosti u proizvodnji.

 

Tako će se ljudi približiti svojoj prirodi, nalaziti vrijednosti koje proizilaze iz njihove prirode. Socijalizam će doprinijeti uklanjanju subjektivne vizije stvarnosti koji su autoriteti nametali kroz povijest čovječanstva koja je osnova otuđenja i problema u društvu. To je proces razotuđenja. To će donijeti vijednosti koje će omogućiti ljudima da pronađu vlastitu ravnotežu i zadovoljstvo.

 

U socijalizmu čovjek će prihvatiti vlastitu nemoć tamo gdje je ne može prevladati i pronalazi će polja na kojima može objektivno ispoljiti svoju moć i tako zadovoljiti svoje potrebe. Čovjek koji uspije konstantno zadovoljavati svoje potrebe nije destruktivan. Takav čovjek nema depresije, neuroze, psihoze, nije alkoholičar, narkoman, mazohist, sadist, ni agresor. Proces razotuđenja će uključiti ljude u odgovoran život. Socijalizam će omogućiti produktivnu i konstruktivnu orijentaciju ljudi, a tada će oni vjerovati u prosperitet, baziranom na produktivnosti, solidarnosti, uzajamnosti. Tada čovjek može vjerovati u mir, ljubav, radost življenja.  

 

Tada će društvo formirati konstruktivan odnos prema mladima. Taj odnos više neće biti autoritativan iz razloga što ni jedan čovjek u društvu neće biti potčinjen autoritativnim silama pa neće imati ni uzor za takav odnos prema mladima. Može se pretpostaviti da će takvo društvo formirati prirodan način življenja, sa prirodnim potrebama, a to znači da će stanovništvo odustati od otuđenih ambicija u korist formiranja zdravog odnosa u društvu. Formirati će se odnosi u kojem će odrasli uvažavati mlade i gdje će se međusobne suprotnosti rješavati dogovorom. Formirati će se odnosi koji će omogućiti čovjeku da se od najranije mladosti ispravno razvija. I tek tada društvo može pronaći vlastitu dugoročnu konstruktivnu orijentaciju.

Labour Price

3.1.2.2.1       Price of Work  

Work has indirect and direct value. Indirect value of work is expressed through the value of work products, while direct work value is defined by the values occurring in the duration of the work.

 

In capitalism, the work value is shown almost exclusively in indirect form through the work products’ value because the work is, per se, generally not favourable. Accordingly, it almost does not have a direct value. Besides that, a scale that might measure such a value does not exist. Private companies in the commune will continue to set the price of labour as they do today. The value of work products is formed on the market by the demand and supply of commodities and is determined by the price of the commodities. The work confirms its indirect value through the sale of commodities. Then the price of commodities represents the work price as well.

 

Under socialism, Marx’s labour theory of value is accepted, which did not sufficiently consider the productivity and workload of workers’ participation in producing goods. In embracing the ideology of equality among people, Karl Marx neglected research that would develop the objective values of labour. This finally led to the collapse of the socialist economy.

 

Past labour is the basis of everything that society has created, while current labour is the basis of everything the economy produces; therefore, both must be objectively respected. Such respect can create the conditions for a just distribution of work results in production, which will have a stimulating effect on the individual’s work and contributions to the prosperity of society.

 

In connection with the above, let us accept that the indirect work value (in further text: the work price) in the unit of time is equal to the product of the multiplication of past labour income-based value and current labour price.

Work price = (Value of past labour) x (Current labour price)

Past Labour Value

 

The new socialist system envisages competition of workers through higher productivity for every publicly owned job. Labour competition will achieve higher productivity than capitalism in the open labour market. Socialism needs socially owned enterprises to accomplish this goal. In this regard, socialism needs to find an acceptable method of transforming private capital into social. Owners of private capital will voluntarily surrender their private property to society if society values and redeems their wealth fairly. Such capital will create a new value in socialism, which will generate higher incomes for those who sell their property to society. Thus, the owners of capital may be encouraged to sell their worth to the community.

 

Socialism has accepted a labour theory of value which bounds the value of commodities to the labour time needed to produce them. However, each product contains a considerable number of hours of work spent on discovering and developing the production process that every product uses, from the discovery of fire and wheels to the present day. Therefore, it is impossible to summarize the total amount of past work of all generations that created the material and cognitive values that society possesses today.

 

Therefore, socialist systems valued the past work of workers formally through years of service. A longer length of service would generate a slightly higher income. However, such a measure of the value of labour did not objectively represent individual contributions to productivity and was therefore not productively stimulating. A significant shortcoming also lies in the fact that socialism did not consider the value of the past work of ancestors who contributed to the creation of all that society possesses.

 

The capitalist system determines the values of past labour more efficiently because it displays it using the value of produced capital. Marxists complain that a part of the value of owned capital arose from the exploitation of workers, which is true. Still, there is no method to determine which part of their property was created by exploitation. Private property is accepted globally, so socialism should accept it as well because there is no other suitable solution. Socialism needs to reform the distribution system in production to increase justice and improve society.

 

It should be accepted that a more valuable capital reflects the greater value of past labour. A higher value of past work should generate higher income, motivating private capital owners to cede their capital to society. Let us call the unit value of past labour the point of past labour. The value of past labour points can replace the private property in real estate, securities, and money in the commune. All values expressed in money can also be shown in points of past work. Private owners of material goods will receive as many points of past labour as their property has value. A person with more valuable past work will get more past work points and earn a higher income.

 

People who do not have private property will realize the value of past work to the extent that, together with their ancestors, they contributed to the creation of value in the joint ownership of the commune’s inhabitants. Each commune possesses material values owned by the society, such as enterprises, land, facilities, infrastructure, natural resources, and other resources. Therefore, it will be necessary to estimate the total value of the common property of the commune inhabitants and determine its equivalent in points of past labour.

 

The total value of common material wealth expressed in points of past work should be determined by arbitration and then distributed to members of the community according to jointly agreed and accepted criteria that will valorize all contributions to building today’s society. Such a criterion should be formed by an expert commission and approved by the commune assembly. In the end, the people will accept such regulation in a referendum by a large majority. Such regulation of past work values will not be easy to establish, but people could succeed after optimally acceptable corrections. The solution that will be obtained, no matter how relatively inconvenient it may seem to an individual or a group, will be a big step forward for each individual and society.

 

Let a certain amount of points of past work be achieved at birth. The work that individual does by creating themselves brings the greatest perfection that people can make and brings the most significant value that people can create for themselves and other people. In addition, socialism can regulate the birth rate of society through past labour points. For example, in a fall in the birth rate, parents with more children may be awarded more past labour points, stimulating an increase in the birth rate and vice versa.

 

Furthermore, the values of past work can increase linearly with years of service, education and all the criteria that permanently improve individuals, society and nature. The distribution of past work points will be formed so that it stimulates the realization of social needs. This measure primarily refers to production where productivity-enhancing work would be rewarded.

 

The total amount of past labour points of all commune residents can be adjusted to the numerical value of the commune’s revenue. The increase in production increases the commune’s revenue. As the revenue increases, the number of past labour points earmarked for distribution among the commune’s population increases. Workers who improve productivity would be automatically awarded a certain number of points of past work, depending on the rise in productivity and their responsibilities. This will promote the productivity of the companies, which will bring social prosperity.

 

On the other hand, socially owned production has not found a satisfactory solution to the issue of workers’ responsibility in the production process, which significantly reduces their efficiency. Besides this, work can also permanently damage the productivity of companies. Accountability in the social form of production can be taken through past labour points. The difference between offered and achieved productivity has its value. This value can be determined and then deducted from the value of the past work of responsible workers by a mutually agreed procedure. The application of such a mode of accountability can solve the fundamental problems in socialist production and non-profit organizations. Taking responsibility by the points of past work will be highly effective because people will be responsible with their past work and their current and future income. The principles of responsibility in production are presented in more detail in the chapter “Development of the Economy.”

 

A certain amount of past work points can be distributed to independent creators as a sign of recognition for scientific, cultural, sports, or other achievements that would stimulate non-economic activities that contribute to society’s development. Such a distribution would be made by juries and arbitration commissions based on the valorization of accomplishments and the benefits that society derives from them.

 

Every society has a judicial system that protects people from the criminal activities of free individuals. Today’s system solves the problem of crime mainly by taking people’s freedom by imprisonment. It is cruel and inefficient. Socialism can achieve an acceptable and effective form of sanctions for offences committed by deducting the statutory amount of past labour points. It should not be a problem for the courts to convert prison sentences into points of past work. Taking responsibility through past labour points is more acceptable than inhumane imprisonment because people retain their freedom and productive power in society. If people commit significant crimes, they may lose all points of past work and even fall into negative value. The proposed system can make the negative value of past work points psychologically, sociologically and economically more painful than prison. People who fall into the negative amount of past work points will be able to earn only a minimal income no matter what job they do until they escape from the negative value of past work. For the few that commit particularly disgraceful crimes and are considered a threat to society, they will be rehabilitated in mental health institutions.

 

Furthermore, people who fall into the negative value of past work points may be forced to wear unique clothing that will tell everyone that they are bad people. As a result, people will shy away from crime and misdemeanours more than they do today. Suppose people enter the negative value of past work. In that case, they will try hard to get out of it, and this will be possible only with the help of highly productive work and exemplary behaviour over a long period.

 

In the same way, the judiciary can take over the function of rewarding people who bring significant benefits to society, stimulating the development of productive orientation in the community. However, courts have significant shortcomings because their forming of justice in society is authoritative, which means that it is alienated from society. As humanity strives for the growth of democracy, each member should be given equal power to sanction and reward other people for creating benefits and troubles in society. With such a right, every person will receive direct and equal executive power in the community, which would anarchically stimulate favourable social actions at all levels of complex social relations. Such power of judging people is called democratic anarchy.

 

The negative evaluation people receive should take a small part of the points of past work. By introducing such a measure, each person will try not to create disadvantages for another person or create them as little as possible at all levels of complex social relations. In other words, every person should know what does not suit well to another person and will avoid doing it. Moreover, suppose people do not know that they create difficulties for other community members. In that case, the negative evaluations they receive and the penalties that come with it will make them contemplate and realize what is wrong with them.

 

Over a longer period, such an assessment method can replace judicial bodies, laws, and regulations, rendering them unnecessary. People will form unwritten codes of justice based on natural knowledge about realizing benefits in society. On the other hand, every community member should be entitled in the same way to reward people who have contributed to creating benefits for themselves and society. Democratic anarchy can form the most significant benefits in society

 

The number of past work points will be a form of humanistic shares because it will provide income based on the value of past work. More past work points will indicate more valuable past work and generate higher salaries. It will present the productive power of people and become a great value in society. The commune should also be able to exchange past labour points for money to increase confidence in this form of value. This value will continue to be alienated from human nature but will effectively build a good society.

 

Points of past work will be the inviolable property of people that will be inherited through generations. It will thus become a measure of the values of the work through generations. Therefore, the points of past work will require responsible behaviour, bringing social stability through generations. Such a system would be acceptably repressive because it would not deprive people of their freedom but would prevent members of society from using their freedom to create problems in society.

 

 

Current Labour Price

 

The price of current labour depends on the direct value of labour itself. The direct value of labour shows the relation between conveniences and inconveniences arising from work itself, independently of the value of the produced results of work.

 

The conveniences connected with the work as such stem from the meeting of the individual’s immediate work needs, from the necessary exchange of energy with nature, the realization of both physical and spiritual needs, the need for developing the individual’s essential powers, from the status value of the working position, from the presentation of the productive potency in the society, from helping others, as well as in work contributions to the development of society. The conveniences arising from work as such bring pleasure.

 

On the other hand, the work also brings inconveniences, which cannot be accepted as a value. The inconveniences in work occur due to forced work where the individual is a means to realize needs alienated to them, or from forced labour necessary to ensure existential needs. Such work is not free and, therefore, cannot realize the individual’s productive forces, so it cannot bring direct conveniences to the individual.

 

A greater value will present the job that suits the individual’s nature more, their individual characteristics, which realizes more conveniences in its duration. Let it be accepted that average work has a magnitude equal to 1 (one) as direct current value labour. If the interval between the extreme inconvenience and the extreme convenience of work were from 0.1 to 10, then the convenient work would, in mathematical terms, be a hundred times more valuable than the inconvenient.

 

Each worker can most efficiently establish the direct value of current labour because they know best how convenient or inconvenient the work they perform is. Therefore, each individual needs to assess the relationship of the magnitudes of everyday work burden and relaxation with all their psychophysical factors and compare them with other work obligations. The result of such assessment will be a magnitude between 0.1 and 10 that will indicate the relationship between work conveniences and inconveniences on a specific work post against average work.

 

A lower value of current labour represents greater inconveniences during the duration of work and therefore needs to realize a larger share in income distribution to compensate for the work-related inconveniences. Conversely, a higher value of current labour advocates greater conveniences in the work duration in relation to average work and needs from that point of view to realize a smaller share in income distribution and will thus realize smaller conveniences in the work results.

 

The price of current labour determines the share in the distribution of work results. The current labour price is inversely proportionate to the direct current labour value. The current labour price will also have a value scale from 0.1 to 10. A more favourable work will realize an immediate current labour value higher than 1 (one) so that the price of present labour will be smaller than 1 (one), and the income thus realized will be smaller than the average. For example, very unfavourable work getting a direct current labour value equal to 0.2 will be five times less favourable than average work and will realize the current labour price equal to 5, thus an income five times higher than the one on average work.    

 

In a system of protected work posts, each worker could, by their subjective consciousness, evaluate their work as markedly inconvenient and would require a substantially larger share in the distribution of the performance of collective work than the one they would objectively deserve. Socialism will ensure an objective valuation of work with the help of work competition in the work market. This means that in the circumstances of equal productivity, the right to work will be exercised by the worker to whom current labour brings greater direct exchange value or the worker who will demand a lower current labour price and a lower income.

 

In that way, a new trend in society may be achieved in which the direct exchange value of the work would rise to the point where it would become more important than the operating result. Such a trend may form a turning point in the development of society. This is possible to achieve by automation of the production, by the redistribution of inappropriate forms of labour and by the increased possibility of selecting the types of work where the individual may find the sources of realization of their productive, essential forces. The work as a form of realization of the power of being may cause the individual to find non-exhaustive inspiration and necessity, convenience and value. Such work has its usable value. The prosperity of the society lies in the approach where the work in its duration becomes a value. It can bring conveniences greater or equal to those realized beyond the work.

 

The result of such an approach to the valuation of current labour is the number that shows the price of current labour of each worker employed in enterprises, where workers directly realize income by their work. However, each socially beneficial activity would need to be proclaimed as valuable, irrespective of whether it participates directly in the production. An unemployed individual contributes in some form to society daily. The individual is a value to the individual, and society must accept this standpoint for such a value to develop.   

 

This measure refers to all unemployed people: pre-school children, pupils, persons of advanced age who are no longer able to work, invalids and those not wishing to work. Accepting the values of everyone’s current labour means to ensure to each individual an income-based compensation to the level of the recognized price of present labour. The current labour price of the unemployed population needs to be determined by the commune’s leadership based on the commune’s needs and possibilities and adopted by the commune’s assembly. Such values may be changeable according to the economic opportunities and needs of the social community. For example, if workers were not sufficiently interested in work, the price of current labour would, with the unemployed portion of the population, fall depending on the category of the unemployed, which would reduce their income and increase, in terms of revenue, the interest in work.

 

On the other hand, if workers were more interested in work than necessary or, more precisely said, if direct work becomes a value, the current labour price of the unemployed portion of the population will rise and increase their share in the distribution of the result of work, which would reduce the income-based share of the interest in work. Therefore, such income regulation between employed and unemployed portions of the population will contribute to the balance in the work demand and supply, contributing to the balance within complex social relations.

 

Such an approach to work valuation will ensure economic and existential independence and freedom for everyone, which is an essential prerequisite for social freedom, stability, and prosperity. It is necessary to provide basic needs for everyone because an individual’s endangered survival leads to the endangered survival of society. This measure is nothing else but a universal substitution for social, pension and disability insurance, solidarity-based payments to the unemployed, child allowances, or tax facilities in the case of multi-member families. Instead, it means a simpler, more just and more efficient redistribution that is at the same time more natural and wiser when social determinations are concerned.

 

 

Each work contains elements of current and past labour. Past labour without the current one that maintains it has no value, while present labour cannot exist without the past one. As current and past labour are mutually linked, and as the production develops by geometric progression, the price of each work may be shown by the product of past labour value expressed in points of past labour and the price of current labour. 

Work price = (Points of past labour) x (Current labour price)

Such price of current labour needs to be the basis of the work’s indirect value – income. It arises from the formula that the price of each work is proportionate to the number of past labour points and the current labour price. The more past labour points a worker gathers, the higher the price of their work and the higher the supposed income. On the other hand, the more productive, challenging, dangerous, complex, inconvenient, and unhealthy work a highly responsible worker performs, the smaller the value of current labour and, therefore, the work price will be justifiably greater, as will the income.

 

The association of enterprises in the commune realizes the right of workers to work in any work post. At the same time, the method of substituting indirect forms of past labour values allows them to realize income proportionate to the number of past labour points. The worker who possesses a larger quantity of past labour points will realize a larger income than the worker who has a smaller amount of points even though both workers realize the same work performance. Past labour points will become a sort of humanistic shares that will bring income substitution for all kinds of profits, interests, rents, and dividends of the capitalist form of production. However, workers’ large individual incomes will not significantly burden their companies because the incomes will be calculated at the commune level. It will be better explained in the chapter “Commodity Price.”

 

The current labour price will be maximally objective because it will be directly established by work competition. The small value of the current labour price concerning past labour points should not be misleading because an increase of the current labour price of only 0.1, according to the formula, increases the work price by a significant 10%.

 

The price of work develops the labour theory of value and will become a basis for forming workers’ incomes in socialism. As the price of work is objectively established, society will accept such a system of income distribution as just. In this way, society will overcome the big problems of today’s income distribution. Moreover, such an income distribution system may pave the way for a continuously productive orientation. But naturally, the work price will find its confirmation or negation in the realized income that will depend on the realized labour productivity and many other factors.

Cijena rada

3.1.2.2.1       Cijena rada

 

Rad ima posrednu i neposrednu vrijednost. Posredna vrijednost rada se izražava pomoću vrijednosti proizvoda rada dok se neposredna vrijednost rada izražava pomoću vrijednosti koje nastaju u samom trajanju rada.

 

U kapitalizmu se vrijednost rada prikazuje gotovo isključivo u posrednom obliku pomoću vrijednosti proizvoda rada jer rad sam po sebi uglavnom nije pogodan pa tako gotovo da nema neposrednu vrijednost. Osim toga ne postoji nikakvo mjerilo koje može prikazati veličinu takve vrijednosti. Privatna poduzeća u komuni će i dalje formirati cijenu rada kao što to i danas rade. Vrijednost proizvoda rada u kapitalizmu se formira na tržištu, ponudom i potražnjom roba a utvrđuje je cijena robe. Rad nalazi potvrdu svoje posredne vrijednosti prodajom robe na tržištu. Tada cijena robe predstavlja i cijenu rada.

 

U socijalizmu je prihvaćena Marxova radna teorija vrijednosti koja nedovoljno uzima u obzir produktivnost i radna opterećenja sa kojim radnici sudjeluju u proizvodnji roba. Karl Marx je prihvatio ideologiju jednakosti među ljudima pa je zapostavio istraživanje koje bi razvilo objektivne vrijednosti rada. To je na kraju dovelo do kolapsa sociajalističke privrede.

 

Minuli rad je osnova svega što je društvo stvorilo a tekući rad svega što društvo stvara i stoga se moraju objektivno uvažavati. Takvim uvažavanjem mogu se ostvariti uvjeti za pravednu raspodjelu u proizvodnji što će stimulativno djelovati na rad čovjeka i doprinijeti prosperitetu društva.

 

U vezi sa navedenim neka se prihvatiti da je posredna vrijednost rada (u daljem tekstu cijena rada) u jedinici vremena jednaka produktu dohodovne vrijednosti minulog rada i cijene tekućeg rada.

 

Cijena rada = (Vrijedost minulog rada) x (Cijena tekućeg rada)

 

 

Vrijednost minulog rada

 

Novi socijalistički sistem predviđa takmičenje radnika za svako radno mjesto u društvenom vlasništvu pomoću veće produktivnosti. Radna konkurencija na otvorenom tržištu rada će ostvariti veću produktivnost nego što ga kapitalizam može ostvariti. Da bi to socijalizam mogao ostvariti potrebna su mu poduzeća u društvenom vlasništvu. Sa time u vezi socijalizam treba pronaći prihvatljivu metodu transformacije privatnog kapitala u društveni. Vlasnici privatnog kapitala će dobrovoljno ustupiti svoje privatno vlasništvo društvu ukoliko društvo pravedno vrednuje i otkupi njihov kapital. Takav kapital će predstavljati novu vrijednost u socijalizmu, generirajući veći prihod onima koji prodaju svoju imovinu društvu. Tako se vlasnici kapitala mogu potaknuti da prodaju svoju vrijednost zajednici.

 

Socijalizam je prihvatio radnu teoriju vrijednosti koja vezuje vrijednost robe s radnim vremenom potrebnim za njihovu proizvodnju. Međutim, svaki proizvod u sebi sadrži ogroman broj sati rada utrošenih na otkrivanje i razvoj procesa proizvodnje koje taj proizvod koristi počevši od otkrića vatre, kotača pa do danas. Nije moguće sumirati svu količinu minulog rada svih generacija koje su stvarale materijalne i spoznajne vrijednosti koje društvo danas posjeduje.

 

Zbog toga su socijalistički sistemi vrijednovali minuli rad radnika formalno pomoću godina radnog staža. Veći radni staž bi ostvario nešto veći dohodak. Takva mjera vrijednosti rada nije zastupala objektivno individualne doprinose ostvarenoj produktivnosti, i zato nije bila produktivno stimu­lativna. Veliki nedostatak leži i u činjenici da socijalizam nije uzimao u razmatranje vrijednost minulog rada predaka koji su doprinijeli stvaranju svega što društvo posjeduje.

 

Kapitalistički sistem efikasnije utvrđuje vrijednosti minulog rada jer ga prikazuje pomoću vrijednosti ostvarenog kapitala. Marxisti prigovaraju da je dio vrijednosti vlasništva nad kapitalom nastao kao proizvod eksploatacije radnika što je u osnovi tačno ali ne postoji nikakva metoda koja bi utvrdila koji dio njihovog vlasništva je nastao eksploatacijom. Privatno vlasništvo je prihvaćeno u svijetu pa ga stoga i socijalizam treba prihvatiti jer nema drugog dobrog rješenja. Socijalizam treba reformirati sistem raspodjele u proizvodnji kako bi povećao pravdu i unaprijedio društvo.

 

Treba prihvatiti da vredniji kapital prikazuje veću vrijednost minulog rada. Veća vrijednost minulog rada treba ostvariti veći dohodak i to će stimulirati vlasnike privatnog kapitala da ustupaju svoj kapital društvu. Nazovimo jediničnu vrijednost minulog rada bod minulog rada. Vrijednost boda minulog rada može zamijeniti privatno vlasništvo u obliku nekretnina, pokretnina, vrijednosnih papira i novca u komuni. Sve vrijednosti koje se mogu izraziti u novcu mogu se prikazati i u bodovima minulog rada. Privatni vlasnici materijalnih dobara će dobiti onoliku količinu bodova minulog rada koliko njihovo vlasništvo ima vrijednost. Osoba koja ima vrijedniji minuli rad će dobiti više bodova minulog rada i ostvariti će veći dohodak.

 

Ljudi koji nemaju privatno vlasništvo će ostvariti vrijednost minulog rada u mjeri u kojoj su zajedno sa svojim pretcima doprinijeli stvaranju vrijednosti u zajedničkom vlasništvu stanovnika komune. Svaka komuna posjeduje materijalne vrijednosti u vlasništvu društva kao što su poduzeća, zemljišta, objekti, infrastruktura, prirodna bogatstva, i ostali resursi. Biti će potrebno procijeniti ukupnu vrijednost zajedničkog vlasništva stanovnika komune i utvrditi njenu protuvrijednost u bodovima minulog rada.

 

Ukupnu vrijednost zajedničkog materijalnog bogastva izraženu bodovima minulog rada treba utvrditi arbitražom a zatim je treba rasporediti članovima društvene zajednice po zajednički dogovorenom i prihvaćenim kriterijama koje će valorizirati sve doprinose u izgradnji današnjeg društva. Takav kriterij treba da formira stručna komisija a odobrava ga skupština komune. Na kraju će društvo na referendumu znatnom većinom prihvatiti pravila takve raspodjele. Takva pravila se neće lako uspostaviti ali bi mogli uspjeti poslije optimalno prihvatljivih korekcija svim ljudima. Rješenje koje će se dobiti, koliko god se može činiti pojedincu ili grupi relativno nepogodno, će predstavljati veliki korak naprijed svakom pojedincu i društvu u cjelini.

 

Neka se određena količina bodova minulog rada ostvari rođenjem. Rad koji čovjek obavlja stvarajući sebe donosi najveće savršenstvo koje čovjek može napraviti, donosi najveću vrijednost koju čovjek može stvarati za sebe i za drugog čovjeka. Osim toga socijalizam može regulirati natalitet društva pomoću bodova minulog rada. Na primjer, u slučaju pada nataliteta može se roditeljima sa više djece dodijeliti veća količina bodova minulog rada čime bi se stimuliro porast nataliteta i obratno u slučaju prevelikog nataliteta moguće je prekomjerno rađanje djece sankcionirati oduzimanjem određene količine bodova minulog rada roditeljima.

 

Nadalje vrijednosti minulog rada se može linearno povećavati sa godinama radnog staža, obrazovanjem i po svim kriterijima koji trajno unapređuju čovjeka, društvo i prirodu. Raspodjela bodova minulog rada će se formirati tako da stimulativno djeluje na realizaciju društvenih potreba. Ova mjera se prvenstveno odnosi na proizvodnju gdje bi se nagrađivao rad koji unapređuje produktivnost.

 

Ukupna količina bodova minulog rada svih stanovnika komune se može uskladiti sa numeričkom vrijednosti dohotka komune. Sa porastom proizvodnje, raste i dohodak komune. Sa porastom dohotka raste i količina bodova minulog rada predviđenih za raspodjelu među stanovništvom komune. Radnicima koji unapređuje produktivnost bi se automatskim postupkom dodijelio određeni broj bodova minulog rada ovisno o povećanju produktivnosti i njihovoj odgovornosti. Na taj način će se stimulirati porast produktivnosti poduzeća čime će zajednica ostvariti veći prosperitet.

 

Sa druge strane, proizvodnja u društvenom vlasništvu nije do današnjeg dana pronašla zadovoljavajuće rješenje pitanja odgovornosti radnika u procesu proizvodnje, što znatno umanjuje njihovu efikasnost. Osim toga, rad može i trajno oštetiti produktivnost poduzeća. Odgovornost u društvenom obliku proizvodnje se može podnositi pomoću bodova minulog rada. Razlika između predviđene i ostvarene produktivnosti ima svoju vrijednost, i ta vrijednost se može utvrditi i zatim dogovorenim postupkom oduzeti od vrijednosti minulog rada odgovornih radnika. Primjena takvog načina podnošenja odgovornosti može riješiti osnovne probleme u socijalističkoj proizvodnji kao i u neprofitnim poduzećima. Podnošenje odgovornosti dohodovnim bodovima minulog rada će biti izrazito efikasno jer na taj način ljudi odgovarati svojim minulim radom i svojim tekućim i budućim dohotkom. Principi odgovornosti u proizvodnji su detaljno definirani u poglavlju „Razvoj privrede“.

 

Određena količina bodova minulog rada se može raspoređivati samostalnim stvaraocima kao znak priznanja za naučna, kulturna, sportska ili druga dostignuća što bi stimuliralo neprivredne aktivnosti koje doprinose razvoju društva. Takvu raspodjelu vršile bi ocjenjivački sudovi i arbitražne komisije na temelju valorizacije stvaralačkih dostignuća i koristi koje društvo od njih ima.

 

Svako društvo ima izgrađen pravosudni sistem kojim se štiti od kriminalnog djelovanja slobodnih ljudi. Današnji sistem rješava probleme kriminala uglavnom oduzimanjem slobode zatvorskim kaznama. On je okrutan i nedovoljno efikasan kada čovjek nema što izgubiti. Socijalizam može ostvariti prihvatljiv i efikasan oblik sankcija za počinjen kriminal oduzimanjem zakonom predviđene količine bodova minulog rada. Sudovima ne bi trebao biti nikakav problem preračunati zatvorske kazne u bodove minulog rada. Podnošenje odgovornosti pomoću bodova minulog rada je prihvatljivije od nehumane zatvorske kazne jer ljudi zadržavaju svoju slobodu i produktivnu moć u društvu. Ukoliko ljudi počine velika krivična djela oni mogu izgubiti sve bodove minulog rada i čak upasti u negativnu vrijednost. Predloženi sistem može negativnu vrijednost bodova minulog rada učiniti psihološki, sociološki i ekonomski bolnijim nego što je to zatvor. Ljudi koji upadnu u negativnu količinu bodova minulog rada će ostvariti samo minimalni dohodak kakav god posao radili dok se ne izvuku iz negativne vrijednosti minulog rada.

 

Nadalje, ljudi koji upadnu u negativnu vrijednost bodova minulog rada mogu biti prisiljeni da nose specijalnu odjeću koja će svima govoriti da su loše osobe. One će se sramiti takve odjeće i to im može donijeti veće nepogodnosti od zatvora. Ljudi će se više kloniti krivičnih djela i prekršaja nego danas. Ukoliko ljudi ipak uđu u negativnu vrijednost minulog rada oni će se jako truditi da se iz nje izvuku, a to će biti moguće samo pomoću izrazito produktivnog rada i ekstremno dobrog ponašanja kroz duži period.

 

Pravosudni organi mogu na isti način preuzeti funkciju nagrađivanja ljudi koji društvu donose značajne pogodnosti čime će se u društvu stimulirati razvoj produktivne orjentacije. Međutim, pravosudni organi imaju veliki nedostatak u tome što je njihov oblik utvrđivanja pravde u društvu autoritativan a to znači da je otuđen od društva. Kako društvo teži porastu demokracije tako treba svakom članu dodijeliti jednaku moć kojom može sankcionirati i nagraditi druge ljude za stvaranje pogodnosti i nepogodnosti u  društvu. Takvim pravom svaki čovjek dobija neposrednu i ravnopravnu izvršnu vlast u društvu, što bi na anarhičan način stimuliralo pogodno društveno djelovanje na svim nivoima kompleksnog društvenog odnošenja. Takva moć ocjenjivanja ljudi je nazvana demokratska anarhija.

 

Negativna ocjena treba svakom čovjeku oduzeti neki mali dio bodova minulog rada. Uvođenjem ovakve mjere svaki čovjek će nastojati da ne stvara nepogodnost drugom čovjeku ili da ih stvara u što manjoj mjeri na svim razinama složenog društvenog odnošenja. Drugim rječima, svaki čovjek treba da zna što drugom čovjeku ne odgovara i to će izbjegavati. Ukoliko čovjek ne zna da stvara nepogodnosti drugim članovima zajednice, negativne ocjene i sankcije sa oduzimanjem bodova minulog rada će ga natjerati da nauči gdje griješi.

 

Takav način ocjenjivanja uz opsežnu primjenu kroz dulji period može zamijeniti pravosudne organe, zakone i propise pa će isti postati suvišni. Društvo će formirati nepisanu pravdu baziranu na prirodnom saznanju o ostvarenju prirodnih pogodnosti u društvu. Sa druge strane svakom članu društvene zajednice treba omogućiti da svojim glasom na isti način nagradi pojedince koji doprinose stvaraju pogodnosti za njih i društvo. Demokratska anarhija može formirati najveće pogodnosti u društvu.

 

Količina bodova minulog rada će predstavljati oblik humanističkog akcionarstva jer će osigurati prihode bazirane na minulom radu. Veća količina bodova minulog rada će ukazivati na vrijedniji minuli rad pa će ostvariti veći dohodak. Ona će prezentirati produktivnu moć ljudi pa će postati velika vrijednosti u društvu. Komuna treba omogućiti i zamjenu bodova minulog rada za novac kako bi povećalo povjerenje stanovnika komune u ovakav oblik vrijednosti. Ta vrijednost će i dalje biti otuđena od čovjekove prirode ali će efikasno graditi dobro društvo.

 

Bodovi minulog rada će biti neprikosnovena čovjekova svojina koja će se nasljeđivati kroz generacije. Tako će postati mjera vrijednosti rada kroz generacije. Bodovi minulog rada će tako zahtijevati vrlo odgovorno ponašanje donoseći socijalnu stabilnost kroz generacije. Takav sistem bi bio prihvatljivo represivan jer nebi oduzimao slobodu djelovanja ljudi ali bi spriječio članove društva da koriste svoju slobodu na taj način da stvaraju nepogodnosti u društvu.

 

Cijena tekućeg rada

 

Cijena tekućeg rada ovisi direktno o neposrednoj vrijednosti samog rada. Neposredna vrijednost rada pokazuje odnos pogodnosti i nepogodnosti proizašlih iz samog rada nezavisno od vrijednosti proizvedenih rezultata rada.

 

Pogodnosti vezane za sam rad proizilaze iz zadovoljenja čovjekovih neposrednih radnih potreba, iz nužne razmjene energije sa prirodom, iz oživotvorenja fizičkih i duhovnih potreba, iz potrebe razvoja čovjekovih bivstvenih snaga, iz statusne vrijednosti radnog položaja, iz prezentacije produktivne moći pojedinaca u društvu, iz pružanja pomoći drugima, kao i iz sudjelovanja u razvoju društva. Pogodnosti proizašle iz samoga rada po svojoj prirodi donose zadovoljstvo.

 

Sa druge strane rad donosi i nepogodnosti i kao takav ne može biti prihvaćen kao vrijednost. Nepogodnosti u radu nastaju kao posljedica prisilnog rada u kojem je čovjek sredstvo ostvarenja njemu otuđenih potreba ili prisilnog rada neophodnog za osiguravanje egzistencijalnih potreba. Takav rad nije slobodan i stoga ne može oživotvoriti čovjekove produktivne snage pa ne donosi čovjeku neposredne pogodnosti.

 

Veću neposrednu vrijednost će ostvariti rad koji više odgovara čovjekovoj prirodi, njegovim individualnim osobinama, koji ostvaruje više pogodnosti u svom trajanju. Neka se prihvati da je prosječan rad ima neposrednu vrijednost tekućeg rada u veličinu 1 (jedan). Ako bi interval između krajnje nepogodnog i krajnje pogodnog rada bio od 0,1 do 10 tada bi matematički, pogodan rad bio sto puta vredniji od nepogodnog.

 

Neposrednu vrijednost tekućeg rada može na najefikasniji način utvrditi svaki radnik samostalno jer on najbolje zna koliko mu je posao koji obavlja pogodan ili nepogodan. Svaki radnik treba procjeniti odnos veličina svakodnevnog radnog opterećenja i relaksacije sa svim svojim psihofizičkim faktorima i usporediti ih sa drugim radnim obavezama. Rezultat takvog izjašnjavanja će biti veličina između 0,1 i 10 koja će ukazivati odnos pogodnosti i nepogodnosti rada na određenom radnom mjestu u odnosu na prosječan rad.

 

Manja vrijednost tekućeg rada zastupa veće nepogodnosti u trajanju rada pa sa tog stanovništa treba da ostvari veći udio u raspodjeli dohodaka sa čime će kompenzirati radne nepogodnosti. Veća vrijednost tekućeg rada zastupa veće pogodnosti u trajanju rada u odnosu na prosječan rad i sa tog stanovišta treba da ostvari manji udio u raspodjeli dohodaka pa će ostvariti manje pogodnosti u rezultatima rada.

 

Udio u raspodjeli rezultata rada se utvrđuje cijenom tekućeg rada. Cijena tekućeg rada je obrnuto proporcionalna od neposredne vrijednosti tekućeg rada. Cijena tekućeg rada će isto imati skalu vrijednosti od 0,1 do 10. Pogodniji rad će ostvariti neposrenu vrijednost tekućeg rada veću od 1 (jedan) pa će cijena tekućeg rada biti manja od 1 (jedan) i sa time će ostvariti manji dohodak od prosječnog. Na primjer: Izrazito nepogodan rad koji neposrednim iskazom radnika dobije neposrednu vrijednost tekućeg rada u veličini 0,2 će biti pet puta nepogodniji od prosječnog rada pa će ostvariti cijenu tekućeg rada u veličini 5 i sa time pet puta veći dohodak od prosječnog rada.

 

U sistemu zaštićenih radnih mjesta svaki radnik bi svojom subjektivnom sviješću mogao procijeniti svoj rad kao izrazito nepogodan pa bi zahtjevao znatno veći udio u raspodjeli rezultata zajedničkog rada nego što ga objektivno zaslužuje. U socijalizmu će se osigurati objektivno vrednovanje rada uz pomoć radne konkurencije na tržištu rada. To znači da će uz jednaku produktivnost pravo na rad ostvariti radnik kojem tekući rad donosi veću neposrednu prometnu vrijednost, odnosno radnik koji će zahtjevati manju cijenu tekućeg rada, odnosno manji dohodak.

 

Na taj način se može ostvariti novi trend u društvu u kojem bi radu rasla neposredna vrijednost do te mjere da postane potrebniji nego rezultat rada. Takav trend može formirati prekretnicu u razvoju društva. To je moguće postići automatizacijom proizvodnje, preraspodjelom nepogodnih oblika rada i povećanjem mogućnosti izbora rada u kojima čovjek može nailaziti na izvore oživotvorenja svojih produktivnih, bivstvenih snaga. Rad kao oblik oživotvorenja čovjekova bića može naći neiscrpnu inspiraciju pa tako i potrebu, pogodnost i vrijednost. Takav rad ima svoju upotrebnu vrijednost. U pristupu u kojem rad u svom trajanju postaje vrijednost, u kojem donosi pogodnosti veće ili najmanje jednake pogodnostima provedenim izvan rada leži prosperitet društva.

 

Rezultat ovakvog pristupa vrednovanja tekućeg rada jest broj koji pokazuje cijenu tekućeg rada svakog radnika zaposlenog u poduzećima, tamo gdje radnici svojim radom neposredno ostvaraju dohodak. Međutim, trebalo bi svako društveno korisno djelovanje proglasiti vrijednim bez obzira da li neposredno sudjeluje u proizvodnji. Čovjek koji nije neposredno u radnom odnosu svakodnevno daje svoj doprinos društvu u nekom obliku. Čovjek je čovjeku vrijednost i taj stav društvo mora da prihvati da bi se takva vrijednost mogla razvijati.

 

Ova mjera odnosi se na sve nezaposlene, na predškolski uzrast, na učenike, zatim na ostarjele osobe koje više nisu u mogućnosti da rade, na invalide i na sve one koji ne žele da rade. Prihvaćanje vrijednosti tekućeg rada svakog čovjeka znači osigurati svakom čovjeku dohodovnu kompenzaciju u visini priznate cijene tekućeg rada. Cijenu tekućeg rada nezaposlenog stanovništva treba da određuje rukovodstvo komune na temelju potreba i mogućnosti komune a usvaja ih skupština komune. Te vrijednosti mogu biti promjenjljive prema ekonomskim mogućnostima i potrebama društvene zajednice. Ukoliko radnici ne bi bili u dovoljnoj mjeri zainteresirani za rad, cijena tekućeg rada kod nezaposlenog dijela stanovništva bi ovisno o kategoriji nezaposlenih padala što bi im smanjilo dohotke pa bi se dohodovno povećao radni interes.

 

Sa druge strane ukoliko bi radnici bili više zainteresirani za rad nego što je to potrebno, odnosno ukoliko neposredan rad postane vrijednost, cijena tekućeg rada nezaposlenog dijela stanovništva će rasti, čime bi im se povećao njihov udio u raspodjeli proizvoda rada što bi smanjilo dohodovni udio radnog interesa. Takvom regulacijom dohotka između neposredno zaposlenog i nezaposlenog dijela stanovništva će se doprinositi ravnoteži ponude i potražnje za radom a to znači i ravnoteži unutar složenih društvenih odnosa.

 

Ovakav pristup vrednovanja rada će osigurati ekonomsku a to znači i egzistencijalnu neovisnost odnosno slobodu svakom čovjeku što je osnovni uvjet društvene slobode, stabilnosti i prosperiteta. Svakom čovjeku je nužno osigurati zadovoljenje minimalnih egzistencijalnih potreba jer ugrožena egzistencija pojedinca dovodi do ugrožavanja egzistencije društva. Ova mjera ne predstavlja ništa drugo nego univerzalnu zamjenu za socijalno, mirovinsko i invalidsko osiguranje, za solidarno davanje nezapos­lenima, za dječije doplatke odnosno poreske olakšice kod višečlanih obitelji. Ovakav sistem raspodjele stoga ne predstavlja dodatno opterećenje društvu, jer svi i onako troše, već predstavlja jednostavniju, pravedniju, efikasniju, društvenim određenjima prirodniju i mudriju preraspodjelu.

 

Svaki rad sadrži elemente tekućeg i minulog rada. Minuli rad bez tekućeg koji ga održava nema vrijednost, dok tekući rad bez minulog ne može postojati. Kako su tekući i minuli rad međusobno povezani i obzirom da se proizvodnja razvija geometrijskom progresijom cijena svakog rada se može prikazati produk­tom vrijednosti minulog rada izraženog bodovima minulog rada i cijene tekućeg rada.

 

Cijena rada = (Bodovi minulog rada) x (Cijena tekućeg rada)

 

Ovakva cijena tekućeg rada treba da bude osnova posredne vrijedosti rada – dohotka. Iz formule je vidljivo da je cijena svakog rada proporcionalna količini bodova minulog rada i cijeni tekućeg rada. Što radnik prikupi više bodova minulog rada to će cijena njegovog rada biti veća pa će i pretpostavljeni neto dohodak biti veći. Sa druge strane što radnik više obavlja produktivniji i teži, odgovorniji, opasniji, složeniji, neugodniji, nezdraviji rad to će neposredna vrijednost tekućeg rada biti manja pa tako će cijena rada biti opravdano veća čime će i dohodak biti veći.

 

Udruživanjem poduzeća komune radnici ostvaruju pravo na rad na svakom radnom mjestu, a metodom supstitucije posrednih oblika vrijednosti minulog rada ostvaruju dohodak proporcionalan količini bodova minulog rada. Radnik sa većom količinom bodova minulog rada će ostvariti veći dohodak od radnika koji ima manju količinu bodova minulog rada čak i  ako oba radnika ostvare jednaku produktivnost. Bodovi minulog rada će postati oblik humanističkog kapitala kao zamjene za sve obllike profita, rente, kamate, dividenda kapitalističkog oblika proizvodnje. Veliki dohodak pojedinih radnika neće prestavljati veći dohodovni teret poduzećima jer će se dohodak obračunavati na nivou komune. Ovo će biti bolje objašnjeno u poglavlju „Cijena robe“.

 

Cijena tekućeg rada će biti maksimalno objektivna jer će je utvrditi neposredno radna konkurencija na tržištu rada. Mala vrijednost cijene tekućeg rada u odnosu na vrijednost bodova minulog rada ne treba zbunjivati jer će porast cijene tekućeg rada za samo 0,1 zbog produkta vrijednosti može povećati cijenu rada za čitavih 10%.

 

Cijena rada razvija radnu teoriju vrijednosti i biti će osnova za formiranje dohodaka u socijalizmu. Kako će cijena rada bila objektivno utvrđena društvo će prihvatiti i sistem raspodjele dohodaka kao pravedan. Tako će se prevladati veliki problemi raspodjele dohodaka u društvu koji danas postoji u društvu. Takav sistem raspodjele dohodaka može formirati put kontinuirane produktivne orjentacije u društvu. Naravno cijena rada će naći svoju potvrdu ili negaciju u ostvarenom dohotku koji će ovisiti i o ostvarenoj produktivnosti rada kao i o mnoštvu drugih faktora.

Politika humanizma

3.1.1               Osnove politike humanizma

 

Demokratska anarhija je budućnost demokracije

 

Uvodno izlaganje je donijelo zaključak da demokracija danas u svijetu oscilira između siromašne i nikakve demokracije. U svim demokratskim sistemima postoji veliki problem zaštite interesa slabih pojedinaca od moćnih ljudi u svakodnevnom životu. U današnjam otuđenom društvu čovjek čovjeku može stvarati masu nepogodnosti za koje ne odgovara nikome. Tako se stvaraju nepogodni naboji u društvu. Na „razvijenom“ zapadu radnici traže posao doslovno prodajući sebe. Na poslu od radnika se očekuje velika podređenost poslodavcu jer u suprotnom može ostati bez posla. Kao potrošač, pojedinac je izložen agresivnoj propagandi. U svakodnevnom životu pojedinac nema gotovo nikakvu zaštitu od uvreda, prevara ili bilo kojeg drugog oblika ponašanja koji mu smeta.

 

Izlaz leži u jednakim ljudskim pravima. Budućnost demokracije mora dati ljudima potpuno jednaka prava a to znači i potpuno jednaku moć u društvu. To će riješiti probleme društva. Budućnost demokracije se više neće prvenstveno temeljiti na glasanju za ljude, već na ocjenjivanju postupaka ljudi. Pojedinci će dobiti jednaka neovisna zakonodavna, sudska i izvršna ovlašćenja da ocjenjuju druge ljude. Mala moć u rukama pojedinaca može potaknuti ljude da se povinuju interesima drugih na najbolji mogući način. Ovakva vrsta  demokracija će biti jednostavna, brza i efikasna. Ona će potpuno promijeniti temelje socijalne politike i izgraditi dobro društvo.

 

Neka ljudi dopuste svakome tko u okviru svoje djelatnosti može na bilo koji način utjecati na druge ljude da to čine slobodno po svojoj volji. Ljudi čak tu nemaju puno izbora jer ne mogu miješati u slobodu djelovanja predsjednika, liječnika i mehaničara, niti bilo koje druge osobe, niti imaju mogućnosti, niti vremena, niti prava, pa čak ni želje da to rade. Međutim, svi ti ljudi mogu svojim djelovanjem stvarati pogodnosti i nepogodnosti drugim članovima zajednice. Svaki čovjek može osjetiti da li mu aktivnosti predsjednika, liječnika, mehaničara ili bilo koje druge osobe stvaraju pogodnosti i nepogodnosti. I prema tome pojedinci bi trebali imati pravo da nagrade osobu koja im stvara pogodnosti i kazniti osobu koja im stvara ne pogodnosti. Takvo bi pravo usmjeravalo ljude da  stvaraju maksimalno moguće pogodnost i minimalne nepogodnosti drugim ljudima. Takva orijentacija društva bi doista na najbolji mogući način slijedila potrebe ljudi i stoga bi predstavljala razvijenu demokraciju.

 

Ova studija tvrdi da su jednaka prava ljudi jedina ispravna orijentacija društva. S tim u vezi, neka svaka osoba dobije podjednaku moć da negativno ocijeni, recimo, tri osobe koje su je najviše povrijedile u bilo kojem mjesecu, i pozitivno ocijeniti tri osobe koje su joj ostvarile najznačajnije pogodnosti. Na primjer, ako premijer, susjed i šef najviše naštete nekoj osobi u jednom mjesecu, ona će ih negativno ocijeniti. S druge strane, ako prijatelj, učitelj i pjevač, nekome stvore najznačajnije pogodnosti, ona će ih normalno pozitivno ocijeniti. Također, ljudi mogu koristiti sve ocjene za pozitivne ili negativne ocjene ili u bilo kojoj kombinaciji. To je suština, a ostalo je tehnička stvar koja će se provoditi putem aplikacije na internetu.

 

Zbroj pozitivnih i negativnih ocjena koje pojedinci dobiju od drugih ljudi može se javno prezentirati na internetu. Prebrojavanje ovih ocjena će svima reći koliko su cijenjeni u društvu. Takve ocjene će ljudima postati barem jednako važne koliko su danas važne posjete stranicama interneta, lajkovi i sljedbenici. Nitko neće željeti biti na negativnoj strani ocjenjivanja, već na pozitivnoj strani koliko god je to moguće. Taj cilj će postići djelovanjem na stvaranju značajnijih pogodnosti za zajednicu i smanjivanju ili ukidanju svih nepogodnosti. Ovo će stvoriti dobro društvo.

 

Na taj će način svi ljudi postati jednaki autoriteti koji imaju malu izravnu moć u društvu. S obzirom da će svi ljudi imati jednaka prava i moć davanja nagrada i kazni drugim ljudima neovisno o bilo kakvim pisanim pravilima, takva će demokracija predstavljati anarhiju. To je razlog zašto je ovaj sistem ocjenjivanja nazvan demokratska anarhija.

 

Demokratska anarhija u stvari predstavlja fer tržište ljudskog ponašanja u kojem pojedinci imaju podjednaku moć da prezentiraju dobre ljude isto kao što kupci kupovinom proizvoda prikazuju dobru robu. Takvo ocjenjivanje će objektivno prikazati pozitivne ljude isto kao što tržište roba objektivno ukazuje kvalitenu robu. Ipak, demokratska anarhija će biti efikasnija od tržišta roba zato što direktno prikazuje loše ljude dok tržište roba ne može direktno ukazati na lošu robu. Ona će biti i objektivnija od tržišta roba zato što će svi ljudi imati jednaku moć ocjenjivanja. Demokratska anarhija će doprinijeti poboljšanju društva više nego što tržište može doprinijeti poboljšanju robe. 

 

Ljudi će po prvi put u povijesti čovječanstva dobili izravnu vlast u društvu. Takva će moć eliminirati nekontroliranu ili nedovoljno kontroliranu moć pojedinca koja potječe iz privilegiranog društvenog statusa. Ljudi trebaju shvatiti da je privilegirani položaj pojedinaca temelj problema društva. Nedostatak jednakih ljudskih prava je razlog zašto društvo nikada nije bilo dobro. Demokratska anarhija bi usmjerila svakog člana društva da poštuje druge ljude. Ljudi će postati vrijednosti za sve ljude. Ljudi će se prvi put smatrati jednakima, a to će rezultirati skladnim i konstruktivnim društvenim odnosima.

 

Svatko će slobodno suditi o drugima. Sa time u vezi, mnogi ljudi su se žalili da pojedinci mogu zlonamjerno ocjenjivati ​​druge ljude zbog inata ili zavisti. Odgovor je da takav rizik postoji, ali individualna ocjena ne može nikome nanijeti značajnu štetu. Šteta koju pojedinac može prouzročiti je neznatna u odnosu na državnu vlast koja može cijelu državu odvući na pogrešnu stranu. U predloženom sustavu takve bi vlasti dobile velik broj negativnih ocjena od ljudi, što bi ih pomoću male regulacije moglo spriječiti da proizvode zlo kao što su to činili diktatori kroz povijest. Da li je vrijedno dopustiti pojedincima da krivo sude drugima ako bi takva “suđenja” spriječila velika razaranja u društvu?

 

Osobe koje bi ipak vršile destruktivan način ocjenjivanja ne bi mogle sakriti svoju destruktivnu orijentaciju. To bi pokazali sa svojim ponašanjem, pa bi  u većoj mjeri dobijali negativne ocjene od društva. To će ih prisiliti da posvete veću pažnju da upoznaju sebe i nađu način da ostvare konstruktivnu orijentaciju. Svaki čovjek svojim djelovanjem može stvarati društvu pogodnosti i nepogodnosti i stoga će svaki čovjek dobijati i pozitivne i negativne ocjene i to društvo treba prihvatiti. Međutim, osobe koji bi u većoj mjeri stvarale nepogodnosti u društvu bi dobijale od više ljudi kroz duži period negativne ocjene i to će ih prisiliti da mijenjaju svoje ponašanje. 

 

Sistem ocjenjivanja već postoji u društvu kada se ispituje javno mnijenje o uspješnosti pojedinih akcija u društvu ali nigdje takva ocjena nema neposrednu moć. Zato će trebati dosta hrabrosti i mudrosti u društvu da se takva mjera usvoji, ali će poslije toga stvarati velike pogodnosti društvu.

 

Nešto slično demokratskoj anarhiji već je implementirano na YouTubeu, gdje ljudi mogu  glasati za pjesme ili video zapise sa “sviđa mi se” ili “ne sviđa mi se”. Nikada više od 5% ljudi nije neprimjereno ocijenjivalo pjesme ili video zapise, što znači da je 95% ljudi pošteno ocijenilo rad autora tih zapisa. To sugerira da će demokratska anarhija služiti društvu ispravno ili čak bolje od YouTubea jer će ljudi imati ograničena prava na ocjenjivanje i neće svoje ocjene trošiti neracionalno. Oni će najvjerojatnije pošteno ocjenjivati ​​druge ljude i zato što će se osjećati počašćeni da imaju izravnu moć u društvu.

 

Može se s velikom sigurnošću pretpostaviti da će jednaka moć ljudi po svojoj prirodi učiniti da zloba i zavist jedva postoje. No, ako se tako nešto ipak dogodi, svaka bi osoba mogla ispraviti moguću pogrešnu ocjenu koju je dala drugima pomoću ispravne ocjene čak i mnogo godina kasnije kada doživi prosvjetljenje pod utjecajem jednakih ljudskih prava. Na to će ih potaći njihova savjest.

 

Za one koji su još uvijek sumnjičavi prema demokratskoj anarhiji, ona se može prvo provesti tako da se ocjene prezentiraju samo ocjenjenim ljudima, i nikome drugome. To bi bilo kao da ljudi slušaju anonimne tračeve o sebi, što su manje više svi zaintersirani da čuju. Kao rezultat, većina ljudi će pokušati poboljšati svoje ponašanje u društvu. Međutim, tajni rezultati ocjenjivanja neće spriječiti najgore ljude da se i dalje loše ponašaju. Tada društvo može odlučiti da obeshrabri prestupnike demokratskim prihvaćanjem potpune provedbe demokratske anarhije. Pa čak i tada, ako ljudi dobiju više pozitivnih nego negativnih ocjena, rezultat mogu ostati tajna za druge ljude. Ako je ukupna ocjena negativna, to će biti vidljivo svima, prisiljavajući negativno ocijenjene ljude da poboljšaju svoje ponašanje.

 

Mnogi ljudi, uključujući sveučilišne profesore, su kritizirali demokratsku anarhiju, govoreći da ljudi ne mogu objektivno suditi drugima. Odgovor na takve primjedbe jest da je objektivnost poželjna, ali ne i bitna. Osim toga, birači danas ne moraju biti pametni niti obrazovani da bi imali pravo glasa, pa zašto bi to morali biti u demokratskoj anarhiji?

 

Ali ipak treba postaviti pitanje: Koliko je svaki čovjek sposoban da objektivno ocijeni uzroke nastanka pogodnosti i nepogodnosti, pa stoga, koliko je kompetentan da vrši ocjenjivanje djelovanja drugog čovjeka? Ljudi su subjektivni pa svojom ocjenom mogu pogrešno ocjenjivati ljude. Odgovor je: U neposrednom odnosu imeđu ljudi svaki čovjek treba da donosi odluke onako kako ih doživljava i društvo je dužno da uvažava osjetilna i emotivna stanja svakog čovjeka bez obzira koliko je on subjektivan. Orjentacija koja uvažava svakog pojedinca u društvu je jedina ispravna. Ipak, sistem koji podržava jednaka prava ljudi će razvijati objektivnost u zajednici. Ljudi koji dobiju negativne ocjene će morati učiti što nije u redu s njima, što će ih učiti da formirjui objektivne kriterije valoriziranja pogodnosti i nepogodnosti djelovanja u društvu. Društvo kao skup subjektivnih članova, zajedničkom praksom će učiti objektivnost.

 

Objektivnost će uklanjati sukobe u društvu. Ljudi će u budućnosti vjerojatno davati i primati samo pozitivne ocjene i tada će znati da žive u dobrom društvu. Nakon ovih objašnjenja, nitko dobronamjeran prema svijetloj budućnosti čovječanstva ne bi smio odbiti demokratsku anarhiju. Međutim, zbog utjecaja koje su vlasti nametale kroz povijest čovječanstva, ljudi oklijevaju čak i razgovarati o demokratskoj anarhiji.

 

Jednom kada društvo prihvati demokratsku anarhiju, ona neće davati veliku moć pojedincima, ali će njihove ocjene zajedno imati ogromnu moć. Osoba koja dobije velik broj negativnih ocjena bi se još više trudila da izbjegne stvaranje bilo kakvih nepogodnosti drugim ljudima. Štoviše, ljudi koji dobiju loše ocjene nikada neće znati tko ih je negativno ocijenio, pa će nastojati poboljšati svoje ponašanje prema svima. Kao rezultat toga, nasilnici neće postojati u školi, poslodavci neće zlostavljati svoje zaposlenike, susjedi neće proizvoditi neugodnu buku noću, prodavači neće varati svoje kupce, političari neće lagati ljude itd.

 

Demokratska anarhija će oduzeti privilegirana ovlašćenja svim ljudima. To će eliminirati društveno zlo i formirati dobro društvo u kojem će svi ljudi pokušati ugoditi drugim ljudima na najbolji mogući način. Kada se ljudi naviknu na međusobnu ocjenjivanje, oni mogu demokratski odlučiti da povećaju snagu svake ocjene dodjeljivanjem, na primjer, vrijednosti od jednog dolara svakoj od njih. Svaka pozitivna ocjena koju osoba dobije od nekoga će joj donijeti jedan dolar, a svaka negativna ocjena će joj oduzeti jedan dolar. Ove ocjene ne bi puno utjecale na obične ljude. Ako se dvoje ljudi ne voli, oni se mogu godinama negativno ocjenjivati, što ne bi bila velika stvar. Dobiti ili izgubiti jedan dolar u razvijenom svijetu ne znači puno.

 

Moć ocjenjivanja će iznimno efikasno utjecati na autoritete odgovorne za donošenje odluka u društvu. Što autoritet ima viši položaj u društvu, to bi bila veća njegova odgovornost pred ljudima. Na primjer, američki predsjednik bi mogao dobiti 100.000.000 negativnih ocjena od američkog naroda za lošu politiku, laži i kriminalnu agresiju na zemlje. To bi predsjednika koštalo 100.000.000 dolara u samo jednom mjesecu. Sa druge strane, predsjednikove pristalice ne moraju nužno pozitivno ocijeniti takve predsjednike jer bi mogli imati veće prioritete pozitivnog ocjenjivanja pa će svoje pozitivne ocjene potrošiti negdje drugdje. Neprivilegirani predsjednici se više ne bi usuđivali provoditi lošu politiku. I ako bi se to ipak nekako dogodi, oni bi napustili svoje pozicije brzo. Samo najspretniji i najhrabriji pojedinci bi se usudili voditi zemlje. Ali oni više neće biti autoriteti, nego sluge naroda. Demokratska anarhija bi u korijenu uklonila mogućnost nastanka ekstremno nepogodnih vođa, fašista, nacionalista, šovinista, rasista i svih potencijalnih diktatora koji vrše nepogodan ili destruktivan utjecaj na društvo.

 

Pa što ako utjecajni ljudi koji posjeduju masovne medije nepravedno optuže nekoga za zlo u društvu i tako potaknu ljude da daju loše ocjene pogrešnoj osobi? Takve su stvari lako moguće u današnjem društvu. Međutim, postoji poslovica koja kaže: “U laži su kratke noge.” Jednog dana će se laži otkriti, a onda nitko ne bi htio biti na mjestu tih lažljivih pojedinaca jer će ih narod zasigurno kazniti lošim ocjenama. Oni mogu primati takve kazne dugo i neće se usudili ponovo biti nemoralni.

 

Nadalje sistem omogućava svakom čovjeku da dosegne satisfakciju davanjem loše  ocjene čovjeku koji mu stvara nepogodnosti kao i društvu u cjelini. Takva satisfakcija je povoljnija, konstruktivnija i efikasnija od svih oblika osvete koje otuđeno društvo upražnjava. Naravno da zadovoljstvo donosi i moć nagrađivanja pozitivnom ocjenom kojom svaki čovjek podržava čovjeka koji mu stvara pogodnosti.

 

Predloženim sistemom ocjenjivanja svaki član društva faktički dobija ravnopravnu vlast u društvu. Obzirom da dobitnik ocjene neće imati mogućnost žalbe, može se očekivati da će društvo uvažavati potrebe svakog člana što će doprinjeti formiranju pogodne društvene orijentacije. Uvođenjem takvog sistema svaki čovjek će se truditi da upozna drugog čovjeka i njegove potrebe kako mu nebi i nehotično nanio nepogodnosti. Čovjek voli više ono što poznaje više. U takvom društvu čovjek će se odnositi prema drugom čovjeku sa respektom i dobronamjerno. Truditi će se da djeluje tako da drugom čovjeku i društvu u cjelini donosi manje nepogodnosti i veće pogodnosti.

 

Može se pretpostaviti da će sistem međusobnog ocjenjivanja članova društva dovesti do grupiranja ljudi po principu srodnih interesa. Članovi društva sa jednakim interesima će se relativno izolirati tako da bi u međusobnom kontaktu ostvarili veće pogodnosti i da ne bi stvarali nepogodnosti članovima društva sa suprotnim interesima. Na taj način sistem dozvoljava provođenje različitih interesa u društvu i razvoj bogatstva različitih opredeljenja.

 

U ovakvom sistemu svi stanovnici će stalno nastojati ostvariti što veće pogodnosti pojedincima i društvu u cjelini. Povijesno gledano može se prihvatiti pravilo da tamo gdje je takva društvena orijentacija postojala društvo je prosperiralo i živjelo pogodnim i konstruktivnim životom. Sa druge strane u sistemu gdje su pojedinci nalazili pogodnosti na teret društva je nastajala destruktivna orijentacija koja je vodila raspadu društ­venog sistema.

 

Smisao demokracije je kreirati pravila koja omogućavaju ljudima da žive dobro. Do sada je najbolji rezultat postizan pomoću zakona, ali zakoni nisu riješili društvene probleme. Demokratska anarhija može uspješnije rješavati sporove u društvu nego što to mogu kruti normativni akti. Međusobno ocjenjivanje ljudi će formirati nepisana pravila društvenog odnošenja koje će davati bolje rješenje za pojedince i društvo nego što to mogu zakoni regulacijom. Demokratska anarhija će formirati pravednije društvo što će smanjiti kriminal u društvu pa će pravosudni organi imati manje posla. Ipak suci i tužitelji, koji vode postupke protiv pojedinaca kao i organi reda koji štite društvo će neko vrijeme imati posla i zato moraju imati ocjenjivački imunitet.

 

Ali jednom kada se uspostavi demokratska anarhija, ljudi će imati moć da sami dijele pravdu pa će je manje tražiti na sudovima. Sudovi će imati manje posla pa će gubiti na važnosti zajedno s državnim represivnim aparatom, uključujući policiju i zatvore. Državni zakoni će u budućnosti zastarjevati, što znači da će otići u povijest. To će oslobađati ljude otuđenja koje su vlasti nametale kroz povijest i približiti će ih njihovoj prirodi.

 

Demokratska anarhija se ne može korumpirati. Ona će najvjerojatnije eliminirati nemoral u društvu. Kroz jednaka prava ocjenjivanja ljudi će naučiti što je objektivno etično, a što nije. Ljudi će se pokoravati etici koju spontano uspostave. Ne postoji veći moral nego što ga mogu pružiti jednaka ljudska prava. Zapravo, to je vjerojatno jedini mogući moral jer se etika teško može temeljiti na privilegijama. Privilegirani ljudi teško mogu izbjeći promociju vlastitih interesa što ih lako udaljuje od morala. Demokratska anarhija će biti sposobna stvoriti etično i pošteno društvo.

 

Demokratska anarhija će po prvi put moći provesti zlatno pravilo “Čini drugima ono što želiš da oni tebi čine”, koje je sposobno stvoriti dobro društvo. U biti, demokratska anarhija je prihvatila načelo tržišne ekonomije sa kojom nagrađuje dobro ponašanje pojedinaca. To bi trebalo savršeno funkcionirati. Jednom kada se uspostavi demokratska anarhija, ona će pokrenuti brzo i značajno poboljšanje društva. U trenutku kada ljudi dobiju pravo ocjenjivanja drugih ljudi i pravo da budu ocjenjeni od drugih ljudi, oni će biti manje zainteresirani da se konfrontiraju sa drugima, i više spremni da im udovolje. Ovo je najbolji mogući rezultat demokracije. Tehnologija potrebna za provedbu demokratske anarhije je već dostupna. Demokratska anarhija se može provesti uskoro, što znači da se puno bolje društvo može brzo graditi. Demokratska anarhija će najvjerojatnije ostvariti snove sanjara u povijesti čovječanstva.

 

Antička neposredna demokracija će opet biti potrebna

 

Pod pritiskom demokratske anarhije, vlade će slijediti potrebe ljudi. Vlast se neće usuditi samostalno donositi najvažnije odluke za društvo jer lako može pogriješiti što bi moglo izazvati gnjev naroda i veliki broj negativnih ocjena. Pretpostavimo da vlast nije sigurna kakve su potrebe ljudi. U tom slučaju, njihova odgovornost, jasno definirana uvažavanjem ocjena ljudi, će ih usmjerit da otkriju ljubav prema participaciji ljudi u procesima strateškog odlučivanja putem referenduma. U tom smislu, najvjerojatnije će razviti varijantu antičke demokracije koja će uz pomoć interneta brzo i efikasno uključiti ljude u izravno odlučivanje o zajedničkim potrebama, vjerojatno putem interneta.

 

Ljudi mogu izravno kreirati fiskalnu politiku društva u kojoj bi svaki pojedinac odlučio koliko novca želi platiti iz svog bruto prihoda za poreze. Ukupni zbroj svih odluka ljudi o oporezivanju odredio bi ukupan iznos novca koji je potrebno izdvojiti za takse. Ljudi neće plaćati porez koliko žele. Oni će formirati ukupan iznos novca za poreze koji će se prikupljati proporcionalno visini njihovih dohodaka. Na isti način, svaka osoba može odlučiti kako će se porez trošiti. Svaka osoba će odrediti koliko novca iz poreza želi  izdvojiti za razvoj ekonomije, sigurnost, obrazovanje, zdravstvo, infrastrukturu i druge potrebe kolektivne potrošnje.

 

Ovdje treba nešto reći o demokraciji. Ljudi nemaju jednake dohotke. Rad koji ostvaruje veću produktivnost treba da ima veći dohodak kako bi više doprinio proizvodnji. Kako će ljudi po svojoj slobodnoj volji izdvajati porez iz svojih dohodaka, tako će veći dohotci imati veću glasačku moć odlučivanja. Sa druge strane ljudi neće moći odlučiti da ne izdvaje novac za porez zato što organizacija društva ima cijenu. Društvo bez poreza ne može opstati. Rukovodstvo komune će uz odobrenje skupštine komune morati odrediti moguće intervale porezne politike u postotcima. Na primjer, ljudi mogu dobiti izbor da dodijele do 10% iznad i ispod postojećeg poreza. Ako je postojeći porez 20% to znači da će ljudi birati poreze između 10% i 30% od svojih bruto prihoda. Takvo ograničenje u određivanju visine poreza će umanjiti razlike u glasačkoj moći ljudi u odnosu na razlike u njihovim dohodcima, ali svejedno glasačka moć u fiskalnoj politici ljudi neće biti jednaka.

 

U ekonomiji je povoljnije glasačku moć bazirati na produktivnosti rada nego na potpunoj ravnopravnosti. U ekonomiji ljudi trebaju imati glasačku moć proporcionalnu njihovom dopronosu stvaranju ekonomskog bogatstva koje društvo posjeduje. Treba prihvatiti da iza veće ostvarene produktivnosti stoji vredniji rad. Vredniji rad treba nagraditi većom glasačkom moći kako bi u većoj mjeri stimulirao produktivnost ljudi pa tako i blagostanje u društvu. Kada se odlučuje o raspodjeli zajedničkog novca tada je baziranje glasačke moći na ostvarenoj produktivnoj moći radnika dobra, prikladna i pravedna metoda uspostave demokracije jer će doprinijeti razvoju društva. U donošenju političkih odluka ljudi moraju biti jednaki i naravno jedan čovjek treba da ima jedan glas.   

 

Teoretski, ljudi mogu odlučivati o kolektivnoj potrošnji unutar grupa potrošnje koliko god žele. Sve skupine zajedničke potrošnje će imati daleko značajniji ukupni učinak ako se demokratski usmjere. Slijedeći životno iskustvo, ljudi će naučiti koliko novca treba prikupiti za poreze i kako ga najbolje potrošiti. Dakle, ova potrošnja više neće biti otuđena od društva; ona će najefikasnije pratiti potrebe ljudi. S obzirom da novi politički sistem nudi stabilne i dobre odnose među narodima, ljudi više neće izdvajati novac za potrebe vojski. Vojske će prestati da postoje. U predloženoj demokraciji vođenje ratova više neće biti moguće.

 

Narod mora izravno donositi strateške odluke u društvu, kao što je prihvaćanje osnovnih zakona jer se tako stvara najbolja socijalna politika. Kod donošenja političkih odluka svaki čovjek normalno ima jedan glas. Ništa drugo ne može bolje pratiti interese naroda. Profesionalci će donositi sve druge odluke, a za te odluke će biti izravno odgovorni ljudima. Kada ljudi dobiju izravnu moć da sudjeluju u procesu donošenja odluka i kad budu mogli suditi onima koji donose odluke u njihovo ime, to će najvjerojatnije predstavljati najrazvijeniji oblik demokracije. Teško da se može definirati bolji politički sistem. Ljudi će biti zadovoljni sa takvom demokracijom i neće dopustiti nikome da im je oduzme.

 

Politika komune se više neće formirati u otuđenim centrima političke moći. Ona će polaziti od potreba svakog pojedinog stanovnika i zato se može nazvati humanistička politika. Ona predstavlja budućnost demokracije. Jednog dana će neka politička partija negdje usvojiti demokratsku anarhiju i pobijediti na izborima. To će biti početak velike reforme političkog sistema i velikog razvoja društva u svakom pogledu. 

Humanistic Policy

3.1.1   Basis of Policies of Humanism

 

Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy

 

The introductory speech concluded that democracy in the world today oscillates between poor and no democracy. In all democratic systems, there is a big problem in protecting the interests of weak individuals from dominant people in everyday life. In today’s alienated society, man can create a mass of inconveniences for man for which he is not responsible to anyone, making unfavourable changes in the community. In this way, inconvenient tensions are created in society. This phenomenon is almost legalized, as one can see in everyday life. In the “developed” West, individuals seek a job by trying to sell themselves. Significant servility to the employer is expected at work as otherwise, the worker may lose their jobs. As a consumer, the individual is exposed to aggressive propaganda. In day-to-day life, the individual has almost no protection against offences, tricks or any other form of behaviour that bothers them.

 

The way out lies in equal human rights. The future of democracy must give people equal rights, which means utterly equal power in society. It will solve society’s problems. The future of democracy will no longer be based primarily on voting for the people but on evaluating the people’s actions. Individuals will be given equal and independent legislative, judicial and executive powers to judge other people. A little power in the hands of individuals may incentivize people to comply with the interests of others in the best possible way. This kind of democracy will be simple, quick, and efficient. It will completely change the foundation of social policy and build a good society. 

 

Let people allow everyone who, within the scope of their activity, can affect others in any way to do it freely upon their will. People do not even have many choices because they cannot interfere with the freedom of activities of presidents, doctors and mechanics, or any other person, nor do they have the ability, the time, nor the right, not even the desire, to do so. However, all these people may create advantages and disadvantages for members of society through their actions. People can sense whether or not the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or any other person, bring some advantages or disadvantages to them. And according to it, individuals should have the right to award a person who creates advantages for them and punish a person who produces disadvantages for them. Such a right would direct all people to perform the most significant benefits and the least damage to other people. Such an orientation of society would indeed follow the people’s will in the best possible way and, therefore, would present a developed democracy.

 

This study claims that equal rights of people are the only proper orientation of society. Let each person get the same power to negatively evaluate, let’s say, three individuals who hurt them the most in any month and positively assess three individuals who create the most significant benefits in a month. For example, if a prime minister, neighbour, and boss harm a person the most in one month, they will negatively evaluate them. On the other hand, if a friend, teacher, and singer, produce the most significant benefits to a person, they will normally positively assess them. Also, people may use all the evaluations for positive or negative assessments or in any combination. This is the essence, and the rest is a technical matter which will be performed through an application on the Internet.

 

The sum of positive and negative evaluations that individuals receive from other people could be publicly presented on the Internet. The counting of these evaluations will tell everyone how appreciated they are in society. These evaluations will become at least as important to people as page visits, likes, and followers are important today. Nobody would like to be on the negative side of assessment, but on the positive side as much as possible. They will achieve this goal by working to create the most significant advantages for the community and diminish or abolish all disadvantages. This will create a good society.

 

In this manner, all people will become equal authorities with a bit of direct power in society. Given that all people will have equal rights and the power to give their awards and punishments to other people independently of any written rules, such a democracy will present anarchy. That is the reason why this evaluation system is named democratic anarchy.

 

Democratic anarchy is, in fact, a fair marketplace of human behaviour in which individuals have equal power to present good people just as customers portray good products by purchasing them. Such an assessment will objectively show positive people, just as the commodity market objectively indicates the quality of goods. However, democratic anarchy will be more valuable than the commodity market because it directly presents problematic people, while the commodity market cannot directly point to problematic commodities. It will also be more objective than the commodity market because all people will have the same power of evaluation. Democratic anarchy will contribute to the improvement of society more than the commodity market can contribute to the advancement of goods.

 

People will get direct power in society for the first time in the history of humankind. Such power will eliminate uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. People should understand that the privileged positions of individuals are the basis of problems for society. The lack of equal human rights is why humanity was never good. Democratic anarchy would direct each member of the community to respect other people. People will become values to all people. People will be considered equal for the first time, resulting in harmonious and constructive social relations.

 

Everyone will judge other people freely. Many people complained that individuals might evaluate other people maliciously because of spite or envy. The answer is that such a risk exists, but an individual assessment cannot cause significant harm to anyone. The damage an individual can cause is insignificant compared to that of state authorities because they can force the entire country in the wrong direction. In the proposed system, such authorities would get a large number of negative evaluations from people, which through minor regulation, could prevent them from producing evil as dictators did throughout history. Is it worthwhile to allow individuals to judge others wrongly if such “trials” would prevent major destructions in society?

 

However, people who would perform ill-placed evaluations would not be able to hide their counterproductive orientation. They would show it by their actions, making them receive negative evaluations from society to a greater extent. This will force them to pay more attention to getting to know themselves and find a way to achieve a constructive orientation. Each individual may, by their activity, bring conveniences and inconveniences to society. Therefore, each individual will get positive and negative grades, which the community will need to accept. However, the people who create a more significant number of inconveniences to society would get negative evaluations from more people. On a longer-term basis, it will force them to change their behaviour. 

 

The evaluation system is already in place in societies where public opinion is sought about the success of some actions. However, such an assessment does not have direct power. The community would need to have a lot of courage and wisdom to adopt such a measure, but then it will realize huge benefits. 

 

Something similar to democratic anarchy was already implemented on YouTube, where people get a chance to vote for songs or videos with a “like” or “dislike.” No more than 5% of people evaluated songs or videos inappropriately, which means that 95% of people valued the authors of these videos fairly. This suggests that democratic anarchy will serve society properly or even better than YouTube because people will have limited evaluation rights and will not spend the evaluations irrationally. They will most likely evaluate other people honestly because they will feel honoured by having direct power in society.

 

It can be assumed with high certainty that the equal power of people will, by its nature, make malice and envy hardly exist. However, if something like that still happens, each person would be able to correct a possible wrongful assessment that they gave to others by instigating a correct evaluation even many years later when they experience enlightenment under the influence of equal human rights. Their conscience will make them do it.

 

Those who are still suspicious about democratic anarchy, it may first be implemented by presenting the evaluations only to the evaluated people themselves and not to anybody else. This would be like people listening to anonymous gossip about themselves, which everyone is interested in. As a result, most people will try to improve their behaviour in society. However, the secret results of the evaluation will not stop the worst people from continuing bad behaviour. Then community may decide to discourage the wrongdoers by democratic acceptance of the full implementation of democratic anarchy. And even then, if people receive more favourable than unfavourable evaluations, they may keep the result a secret from other people. If the total assessment is negative, it will be visible to everyone, forcing negatively evaluated people to improve their behaviour.

 

Many people, including university professors, have criticized democratic anarchy, saying that people cannot judge others objectively. The answer to them is that objectivity is desirable but not essential. Besides, voters do not need to be clever or educated to have the right to vote, so why should this be the case in democratic anarchy? People will judge others the way they feel, and every person will be obliged to consider the consequences their actions may have on other people. This is what is needed for creating a good society. By adopting democratic anarchy, people will appreciate other people, which will bring considerable benefits to the community.

 

But the question remains: To what extent can each person evaluate the causes of benefits and troubles objectively, and therefore, how competent are they to evaluate the actions of another person? People are subjective so they may misjudge people with their grades. The answer is: In the direct relationship between people, every person should make decisions as they experience them, and society is obliged to respect every person’s sensory and emotional states, no matter how subjective they are. Nevertheless, a system that supports equal human rights will develop objectivity in the community. An orientation that respects every individual in society is the only correct one. People who receive negative grades will have to learn what is wrong with them, which will teach them to form objective criteria for valorizing the benefits and disadvantages of acting in society. As a set of subjective members, humanity will learn objectivity through shared practice.

 

Objectivity will remove conflicts in society. In the future, people will probably only give and receive good evaluations and then they will know that they live in a good society. After these explanations, no one with good intentions for the bright future of humankind should refuse democratic anarchy. However, due to the influences, authorities have been imposing throughout the history of humanity, people hesitate even to discuss democratic anarchy.   

 

Once democratic anarchy is accepted by society, it will not give much power to individuals, but their collective evaluations will have enormous power. A person who receives many negative assessments would try even harder to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Moreover, the people who receive inadequate evaluations will never know who has evaluated them negatively, so they will try to improve their behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies will not exist at school; employers will not abuse their employees, neighbours will not produce obnoxious noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc.

 

Democratic anarchy will take privileged powers from all the people. This will eliminate social evil and form a good society where all people will try to please other people in the best possible way. When people get accustomed to the mutual evaluation, they may democratically decide to increase the power of each assessment by assigning, for example, the value of one dollar to each of them. Each positive evaluation a person receives from somebody will bring them one dollar, and each negative assessment will take one dollar away from them. These evaluations would not affect ordinary people much. If two people do not like each other, they may negatively evaluate each other for years, which would not be a big deal. Getting or losing one dollar in the developed world does not mean much.

 

The power of evaluations will extremely efficiently affect authorities responsible for making decisions in society. The higher the leader’s position in the community, the greater their responsibility to people will be. For example, the US President might get 100,000,000 negative evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and criminal aggression against countries. That would cost the president $100,000,000 in only one month. On the other hand, the president’s supporters might not necessarily evaluate such presidents positively because they might have higher positive evaluation priorities and spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare perform bad policies. And if it happens somehow, they would leave their positions. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore but peoples’ servants. Democratic anarchy would, in its very roots, eliminate the possibility of an emergence of particularly inconvenient leaders, fascists, nationalists, chauvinists, racists, and all potential dictators who inconveniently or destructively influence society

 

So, what if influential people who own mass media unfairly accuse someone of evil in society and thus prompt people to give inadequate evaluations to the wrong person? Such things are easily possible today. However, a proverb says: “Lies have short legs.” One day the lies will be revealed, and then nobody would like to be in the place of these lying individuals because the people will punish them with inadequate evaluations. They may be receiving the punishments for a long time and would not dare to be immoral again.

 

Furthermore, the system would allow everyone to reach satisfaction by negatively evaluating an individual who creates inconveniences for them or society. Such pleasure is more favourable, constructive, and efficient than any form of revenge that the alienated society practices. Satisfaction also brings the power of reward through positive evaluation, by which the individual supports the individual who creates conveniences.   

 

The proposed assessment system would allow each member of society to become an authority in society. Considering that the assessed person would have no opportunity to complain, it may be expected that the community would appreciate the needs of each member, which would contribute to the formation of a convenient social orientation. Once such a system is introduced, everyone will try to get to know another individual and their needs in order not to inflict inconveniences on them unintentionally. In such a society, the individual will behave vis-à-vis other individuals with respect and in good faith. They will try to act in the way they will bring to the other individual and society as whole fewer inconveniences and more conveniences. 

 

It may be assumed that the system of mutual assessment will lead to a grouping of people according to the principle of related interests. Society members with equal interests will become relatively isolated to accomplish in mutual contact more conveniences and avoid the creation of inconveniences to the society members with opposite interests. In this way, the system will allow the exercise of different interests in society and the development of different orientations. 

 

In such a system, all inhabitants will permanently try to create the most significant possible conveniences for individuals and society. Historically viewed, one can accept the rule that in the cases where such social orientation existed, the community used to prosper and lived a prosperous and constructive life, while in systems where individuals found conveniences to the detriment of the society; a destructive orientation used to occur leading to the break-up of the social order. 

 

The point of democracy is to create rules that allow people to live well. So far, the best result has been achieved by the law, but laws have not solved social problems. Democratic anarchy can resolve disputes in society more successfully than rigid normative acts can. Mutual evaluation of people will form unwritten rules of social behaviour that will provide a better solution for individuals and society than laws can regulate. Democratic anarchy will create a fairer society, reducing crime in the community, so the judiciary will have less work to do. However, judges and prosecutors, who conduct proceedings against individuals and law enforcement agencies that protect society, will have some work to do and therefore must have evaluative immunity.

 

But once democratic anarchy is established, people will have the power to administer justice independently, so they will seek it less in the courts. As a result, the courts will have less work to do and lose importance along with the state’s repressive apparatus, including the police and prisons. State laws will become obsolete in the future, which means they will go down in history. This will free people from the alienation imposed by the authorities throughout history and bring them closer to their nature.

 

Democratic anarchy cannot be corrupted. On the contrary, it will most likely eliminate immorality in society. Through equal evaluation rights, people will learn what is and is not objectively ethical. People will obey the ethic they spontaneously establish. There is no greater morality than equal human rights can provide. This is probably the only moral possible because ethics can hardly be based on privileges. Privileged people cannot escape from promoting self-interests which quickly moves them out of morality. Democratic anarchy alone will be capable of creating an ethical and fair society.

 

Democratic anarchy will, for the first time, be able to enforce the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” which is well capable of creating a good society. In essence, democratic anarchy has accepted the principle of a fair market economy with which it rewards the good behaviour of individuals. It should work perfectly. Once democracy anarchy is established, it will initiate fast and significant social improvement. The moment people get the right to evaluate others and be evaluated by others, they will be less willing to confront others and be more inclined to please them. This is the best outcome of democracy possible. The technology needed for the implementation of democratic anarchy is already available. Democratic anarchy can be implemented soon, which means a much better society can be quickly built. Democratic anarchy will most likely realize the dreamers’ dreams in the history of humankind.

 

Ancient direct democracy will be needed again

 

Under pressure from democratic anarchy, governments will follow the needs of the people. They will not dare make the most important decisions for society alone because they can easily make mistakes that might bring about the people’s wrath and a large number of negative evaluations. Suppose authorities are not sure what the people’s needs are. In that case, their responsibility, clearly defined by the respect of peoples’ evaluations, will direct them to discover love towards peoples’ participation in strategic decision-making processes through referendums. In this sense, they are likely to develop a variant of ancient democracy that will, quickly and efficiently, involve people in direct decision-making about common needs, most likely through the Internet.

 

The people may directly create their fiscal policy by allowing each individual to decide how much money they want to pay from their gross income for taxes. The total sum of all the people’s decisions about taxation would determine the total amount of funds allocated for taxes. People will not pay taxes as much as they want. Instead, they will form the total money for taxes, collected proportionally to their salaries. In the same way, each person can decide how to spend taxes. Each person will determine how much tax they would set aside to develop the economy, safety, education, health, infrastructure, and other collective spending needs.

 

Something needs to be said about democracy here. People do not have equal incomes. Labour that achieves higher productivity should have a higher income to contribute more to production. People will voluntarily deduct taxes from their income so that higher salaries will have greater voting power. On the other hand, people will have to set aside money for taxes because the organization of society has a price. A tax-free society cannot survive. The management of the commune will have to determine the possible intervals of tax policy in percentages with the approval of the commune assembly. For example, people may be given a choice to allocate up to 10% above and below existing taxes. If the current tax is 20%, people will choose taxes between 10% and 30% of their gross incomes. Such a restriction in determining the amount of taxes will reduce the differences in people’s voting power concerning the differences in their income. However, the voting power in people’s fiscal policy will not be equal.

 

In the economy, it is more favourable to base voting power on labour productivity than on complete equality. In the economy, people should have the power to vote in proportion to their contribution to creating the economic wealth that society possesses. It should be accepted that behind the higher achieved productivity is more valuable work. Therefore, more valuable work should be rewarded with greater voting power to stimulate people’s productivity to a greater extent and, hence, prosperity in society.

 

When deciding on the distribution of joint money, then voting power based on the realized productive power of workers is a good, suitable, and just method for establishing democracy because it will contribute to the development of society. In making political decisions, people must be equal, and of course, one person should have one vote.

 

Theoretically, people can decide on collective spending within the consumer groups as much as possible. If they are democratically allocated, all shared consumption groups will have a far more significant overall impact. Following the living experience, people will learn how much money should be collected for taxes and how to spend it. Thus, this spending will no longer be alienated from society; it will most efficiently follow people’s needs in the best way. Given that the new political system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for military expenditures. Armies will cease to exist. In the proposed democracy, waging wars will no longer be possible.

 

The people must directly make strategic decisions in society, such as accepting basic laws because it creates the best social policy. In making political decisions, every person normally has one vote. Nothing else can better follow the people’s interests. Professionals will 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 and judge those who make decisions on their behalf, it will most likely present the most developed form of democracy. One can hardly define a better political system. People will become satisfied with such a democracy and will not allow anyone to seize it from them.

 

The commune’s policies will no longer be formed in alienated centers of political power. It will be based on the needs of everyone so that it can be called a humanistic policy. It presents the future of democracy. One day, some political party will adopt democratic anarchy somewhere and win the election. It will be the beginning of significant political system reform and a considerable development of society.

 

 

System Expectations

3.3        Expectations of the New System  

 

Communism should be considered the best social system

 

Karl Marx created the term communism. It presents a political and economic system in which society owns the means of production and produces for the benefit of the people. Marx defined communism as “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.[1] According to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, communism is the final stage of socialism. Communism should provide all goods and services free of charge to all people, which socialism could not. This is the only difference. Karl Marx and his most prominent students: Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, Mao Zedong, Josip Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, and now Kim Jong-un, have failed to build communism even in theory. Even though their work was based on a noble ideology, they could not find a successful method to improve society, and the final result was a failure.

 

The prime condition for building socialism and communism must be the equal rights of people. Karl Marx thought the same but failed to define them. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin initially intended to build socialism and communism based on equal human rights, but he failed because the people could hardly agree on anything. Democratic anarchy is the solution, but the technology required was unavailable in Marx’s and Lenin’s time. Lenin’s attempt to establish equal human rights experienced such difficulties that he gave up on them and took control over people. The rest of the socialist leaders followed suit. It was precisely where everything went wrong with socialism and communism.

 

***

 

Hopefully, this study has convincingly presented the third natural law of society: Establishing equal human rights creates constructive and harmonious social relations, making people satisfied with their lives. If so, people would be willing to build socialism. To reach communism, people will need to allocate all their incomes for taxes by their free will. Then all of the goods and services will be available free of charge to all people. Technically speaking, if some people refuse to allocate all their gross salaries for taxes, all the people will still receive some income, and some of the goods and services will be charged. This would still be socialism and not communism.

 

Most people believe that communism is impossible to realize due to the weaknesses of human nature. This is false. Money is a real need in a scarcely supplied society. The wealthy elite have increased the value of money much more than it objectively deserves because by having money while people do not, they achieve power over people.

 

Socialism will significantly change this. It will increase production and workers’ salaries, bringing abundant production and consumption available to everyone. Socialism will give stability and justice to the process of production and distribution. Each work position will be theoretically open to everyone at any time. The work market will make all jobs equally desirable, contributing to building harmony in society. People will have equal rights to represent their interests everywhere. By implementing equal human rights, people will become genuinely equal. Then they should realize the second natural law of society: equal power among people builds harmonious social relations. The proposed socio-economic system should create a harmonious society. 

 

The history of humankind is a history of imposed knowledge by authorities that has alienated people from their nature. People should not uncritically accept the influences of other people. They are not even supposed to compare themselves with others because it may alienate them from their nature instead of letting them embrace it. Alienation has put people on the wrong path on which they cannot satisfy their needs. Unsatisfied needs bring disappointment and antagonism and create destructive relationships.

 

Equal human rights will rid people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their interests. Such experiences will teach people to consider the influences of others critically. It will demystify alienated values imposed by authorities throughout the history of humankind. It will help people to get closer to their nature. As a result, people will form objective needs that they may satisfy, which creates a joyful life, bringing living pleasure.

 

The responsibility the system requires from people will teach people to set their needs according to their ability to satisfy them. Therefore, they should realize the first natural law of society: people who permanently meet their needs create constructive social relations. Such people are not destructive. Once people accept the natural laws of society, they will contribute to building a natural, harmonious, and highly prosperous society.

 

***

 

Socialism can regulate all kinds of values in society by using past labour points that will present people’s incomes and decision-making power in the economy. Among other things, past labour points may regulate the world population. For example, granting a stimulating quantity of past labour points for childbirth may increase a low population. And vice versa, a high population may be decreased by removing a sufficient number of past labour points from the couples who would like to have more children than society finds appropriate. Furthermore, the system will develop the same responsibility for protecting the human environment. It will make the whole planet Earth clean and healthy. Using past labour points will make it possible to influence humankind to become highly responsible for its future. 

 

Socialism will not need many of today’s work posts anymore.  The reduction of work posts will start with administration, national defence, police, marketing, trading, insurance companies, etc. The administration will be significantly less needed because accounting will be automatic. The national defence will not be required because no threat to any nation will exist anymore. Police will not be necessary because no danger for individuals will exist anymore. Marketing will not be needed because no competition among companies will exist anymore. Traders will be less demanded because consumers will mostly order their consumption directly from producers. Insurance will not be needed because the system will directly ensure all people.

 

It is hard to name precisely all the work posts that will not be needed in the future, but one may assume they would probably be work posts in direct production and services to satisfy the natural needs of society.  Therefore, one can assume it is approximately half of today’s work posts. Furthermore, suppose one considers that the system ensures the full employment of workers. In that case, such a reduction will automatically reduce needed working hours to 4 hours per worker per day to realize the same productivity as today.

 

The work, in its duration, directly brings conveniences and inconveniences. The individual aspires for a career that brings more advantages and tries to avoid inconvenient work. Shorter work hours will reduce inconveniences that work may bring. In the proposed system, each worker will have an excellent opportunity to choose the work that will, in its duration, bring them major conveniences under the condition that they offer the greatest productivity. It may be supposed that each worker will invest more effort in the field of their working interest, which will augment their working abilities and will thus exercise the right to work in their interest.  

 

The workers unable to accomplish good productivity at any job convenient to them may be released from the work duty; however, they will realize a smaller income than employed workers. During their length of service and by inheritance, each worker gathers past labour points. If they collect enough past work points, they can be released from any work and simultaneously acquire a fair share in the income distribution based on past labour results.  

 

Work will be a value to workers, so they will lower the price of current work to achieve greater competitive power for the desired job. Some workers employed at work posts bringing them a great convenience will over time accept income equal to if they are not working, or an even lower one. This means that labour will be of greater value than inactivity for such workers and a greater value than the consumption of manufactured goods and services. They will achieve the right to the work in their interest on account of a smaller share in income distribution. Many people would be willing to work on a gratis basis in today’s attractive work posts, such as the post of state president or a leading movie actor. The new system will demystify the value of work posts. When all work posts become equally accessible to the people, work practice will remove their alienated mystic value. Also, the system will make all work posts similarly attractive, which will equalize demand for all work posts.

 

The inconvenient jobs will be identified by a considerably higher current work price. These jobs may be assumed to be manual, physical, and non-creative work forms, such as line production, mining, building, or agriculture. Such work forms will be assisted or entirely replaced by automation. 

 

Today’s technological progress in production has already managed to rid the individual of markedly inconvenient forms of work, and this process will further develop. Further on, management in the economy can redistribute the unsuitable work conditions onto several work posts over a short work time, contributing to the balanced distribution of the working burden. Furthermore, the development of technology and new work division with work competition will benefit the workers. That means that the workers may start to achieve higher conveniences at work than they can achieve out of work. In socialism, the work will be becoming a direct value. 

 

The immediate value of the work represents the being benefits derived from the work itself. The benefits of being have long and intense periods until the state of saturation. Socialism can contribute to the cognition that a lasting and balanced form of convenience arises from being. Being implies all activities in the formation and satisfaction of needs. It primarily affects free decision-making and creative action in production and politics, science, culture, sports, and other forms of activity. The proposed system allows a great possibility of being in all fields and therefore gives every person the opportunity to provide significant benefits of living.

 

The indirect value of the work advocates the conveniences arising from the consumption of goods produced by labour. The socialist system of production will bring an abundance of produced goods. The socialist system of distribution of the means of consumption will enable every individual to consume it. When a lot of the means of consumption are accessible to each individual, it will help the individual eliminate the alienated idea of power created by the possession of goods. If the supply of commodities exceeds the consumption needs, commodities will lose their alienated trade value. In such a way, socialism promotes demystification of the produced goods, which contributes to the satisfaction of people’s natural needs. The characteristic of the natural use of commodities is an easy and quick saturation, after which further spending on goods can no longer bring conveniences to the individual.

 

It should be said that by accepting work competition, productivity would be much higher than it is today. The increase in production in the developed world will create general consumer saturation. The consumer mentality will become less pronounced, and society’s interest in commodity consumption will stagnate or fall. Besides that, one should consider the process of disalienation of community that will decrease society’s needs for consumption by finding values of being so that the large production of today will not be needed anymore. 

 

The stagnation of the development of economic productivity in capitalism brings a financial crisis. Socialism will overcome such a crisis by reorganizing labour and further shortening the necessary working hours. Most likely, the future will not require more than two to three hours of work per worker daily to realize such economic productivity that will satisfy the needs of society. By shortening work time, the inconvenient form of work is reduced even more, while on the other hand, the work freedom can provide workers great working benefits. Then the direct value of work will grow further. 

 

The reduction of working hours does not mean that socialism will prevent some from working as much as they want. Here is presented an average amount of work that will produce a reasonably high standard of living for all people. The workers will probably work two days per week and have a five-day-long weekend. 

 

Is it possible? Not only is it possible but also a necessity for future production. Today, many companies spend more hours searching for products that the market demands than producing them. They also invest more work hours in marketing to find customers than in the production of commodities. The producers often make goods without utility value with the hope that they will sell their products with the help of marketing and low prices. In the capitalist economy, they do not have another choice because they have to produce something to earn money for a living. What a senseless waste of work and natural resources! What a meaningless life! 

 

The future will require the new system to implement a considerable rationalization of natural resource spending. It is possible through new inventions, better organization of work, and the change in human needs through disalienation.

 

It may be expected that in a more technologically developed production, most workers will experience more and more conveniences at work. To increase their work competitiveness, they will reduce their current work price and income. When the overall working interest becomes greater than production needs, the entire population will vote to increase workers’ minimal income to diminish the income-based interest in employment. A more sizable competition-related reduction in the current work price will no longer be able to lower the revenue. Therefore, the worker’s coefficient of responsibility will form a more substantial work competition power coupled with productivity.

 

The increase of minimal income will proportionally lower other payments because the total amount of money for all people’s salaries is limited. However, a decrease in the difference among the workers’ incomes will not impact the private holding of past labour points. The individual’s quantity of past labour points will remain untouched in the ownership of each inhabitant as a demonstration of personal productive power. Also, by allocating a more significant amount of money from income for tax purposes, net income will decrease, but workers’ number of points of past work remains unchanged.

 

The higher coefficient of responsibility will further increase the number of past labour points of workers in the case of either individual or collective rise in productivity. Conversely, in the case of a fall in workers’ individual or collective productivity, workers who express a higher coefficient of responsibility will be sanctioned to a larger extent by reducing the number of past labour points. It is already presented that the system will direct each individual to form their natural needs within the limits of their possibility of realization, which ensures the completion of envisaged productivity. That is also the basis of constructive social orientation. 

 

The market economy that socialism takes from capitalism and improves will not be able to envisage the social needs successfully enough. The economic production that does not find demand for its products incurs losses. In socialism, the issue of producers’ responsibility will tighten because the losses in the economy will sanction past labour points of workers. For this reason, the economy will have to search for a more secure form of business activity and find it in production for the known consumers. Even today, special and expensive forms of production are performed following consumer orders.  

 

Socialism envisages collective spending as a consumption based on mutual orders. The associated economy can gradually request the population to plan and order its special material needs to accomplish an even more stable business activity. Production according to consumer orders would progressively create a democratically planned economy, which would no longer be able to develop disinvestments and thus incur losses. Such an economy would bring stability and prosperity to society.  

 

Assets intended for economic development will be determined at the commune, state and international levels according to the following principles of direct democracy. In this way, all communes of the world will be allowed to influence the formation of the funds intended for economic development and exercise the right to their use by their competitive ability in performing the business activity.  

 

Economically developed parts of the world will sooner or later register a drop in consumer needs due to a general saturation, which will decrease the demand for cash assets intended for economic development. The reduced interest in economic growth in developed countries will simplify the access for developing countries to the world’s collective cash assets designed for economic development. As time passes, underdeveloped countries will evolve to a state of consumer saturation. The world market, saturated with work products, will diminish the need for economic development and, accordingly, the demand for money intended to develop the economy. The world population will then vote for smaller appropriations of money for this purpose. It may be expected that at a higher degree of economic development of all humankind, assets intended for developing the market economy, as a form of large-size spending, will decrease to zero.  

 

However, humankind will always need to develop its production, which will require work and money. Money required for economic development can be later earmarked from the fund of collective spending. Economic growth in a developed society will no longer depend on the market but on the production plan.

 

Once the assets intended for the development of the market economy decrease to zero, society will earmark all assets for spending. It may be expected that the population saturated with individual expenditures and aware of the collective spending rationality will dedicate a large portion of assets used for economic development to the collaborative spending.  

 

A larger amount of money for collective spending will enable a larger, higher quality, and generally better collaborative consumption. The purpose of money assets for communal expenditure will be determined directly by the people by transferring the assets into funds of their interest. Certain funds that receive a more significant amount of money will develop more specific forms of collective consumption.  

 

It may be expected that at some point in the society’s development, some amount of money for collective consumption will, due to general saturation, remain unused after meeting the mutual consumption needs. Such money can be used to pay for certain expenses of individual consumption that will be given free of charge to the population in the commune.

 

As free-of-charge or subsidized healthcare and education already exist in the world today, it will also be possible to introduce free consumption of goods and new services. However, in the first place, free distribution should include goods and services inevitable for each inhabitant, such as food and transport, and then other forms of consumption with which the market is saturated and can always satisfy the demand.  

 

The producers of free-of-charge goods will automatically become non-profit organizations. But, until then, the system will already have equalized work and all values arising from work in non-profit organizations and profit companies. The introduction of free-of-charge commodities does not mean a determined distribution of the means of consumption where each inhabitant would get a certain quantity of goods. This is the most primitive form of consumption and represents a violation of inhabitants’ needs. Instead, it understands a free distribution of commodities where each inhabitant will freely use them according to their own needs.  

 

It may be assumed that the introduction of free-of-charge commodities will begin in the territory of the most developed communes from the surpluses of the collective consumption fund in the commune. Members of families do not charge each other for goods and services. It is about the whole world becoming one big family, which is the intention of this book. 

 

Collective consumption and work competition will enable an expanded building of all facilities necessary for society and their maintenance. Socialism can ensure that each inhabitant utilizes any housing premise if they are ready to pay the competitive rent. It may be assumed that over time some individuals with lower incomes will be able to lease more valuable housing premises if they deprive themselves of some other form of expenses. Such a possibility will contribute to the demystification of real estate values respectively. It will enable each individual to establish the limits of natural needs in using real estate based on their practice. The use of large housing requires a lot of maintenance time against the opportunity of finding the power of being in the prosperous social relations socialism offers. Moreover, with the decreasing difference among income levels, the difference among possibilities of paying rent will also decrease. Uniformity in the payable rent for housing will require the construction and adaptation of real estate of uniformed optimal values to have a consistent demand established.

 

A surplus of housing space may appear in socialism. The surplus of housing space does not have a trade value because nobody needs it. As uniform, high-quality standards will characterize all housing spaces, it may be expected that living spaces will lose their trade value. It may be anticipated that rent for using real estate in the developed world might tend to zero. In an exceptionally developed society where a surplus of housing space will exist, distribution of the real estate can be performed by mutual agreement among inhabitants. Past labour points will ensure the responsible behaviour of users toward real estate.  

 

Once the society overcomes the need to present the alienated form of power by possessing commodities and properties, it can expect to earmark increasingly large amounts of money for collective consumption and decrease the amount of money intended for individual consumption. An understanding will be formed in the society that collective spending is more rational in terms of the degree of utilization of goods and consumption of natural resources. 

 

It should be repeated; the drop in inhabitants’ income does not question the number of past labour points held by citizens. The quantity of past labour points of all workers in the commune is equal to the commune’s gross income level. The gross income of the commune consists of assets for individual and collective consumption. With the decrease in personal income, collective revenue will grow. The gross income will remain the same so that the number of past labour points presenting the individual’s power in society will also remain unchanged.  

 

Larger appropriations of funds intended for collective consumption would enable the introduction of new free-of-charge commodities to the point when all collective needs of the society will become satisfied. Funds intended for collaborative spending can then cover the costs of specific material inhabitants’ needs.  

 

Socialism will develop the awareness that more significant than natural consumption would not be necessary for the individual and would thus not represent value. However, the system needs to be strong enough to satisfy the inhabitants that would still have alienated material needs, irrespective of the fact that possession as such would not be a value in the society. The system will perhaps develop social awareness that will portray possession as a negative trait of the individual’s character. Such orientation might be shameful and sanctioned by negative assessments of the remaining population. However, if the system fails to meet the alienated needs of individuals, it will have to halt the distribution of free-of-charge commodities. 

 

However, the contribution of such a system lies in the elastic possibility of shifting away from the rigid capitalist form of production and distribution, where each work and commodity is directly charged for, to a completely free form of production where work and commodities distribution is carried out according to the needs of the people. The system can stand any oscillation in the social conditions, including the return to charging for all commodities and services without any crisis, by immediately following the needs of the society.  

 

If society would form natural material needs, then even the present-day economy in the developed countries could meet them. In such a society, the distribution of material goods could no longer be the basis for conflict in the community, as everyone would achieve a share according to their own needs. The individual would then lose the need to possess goods favouring the values of being arising from work and the prosperous relationship with society and nature.  

 

When collective spending satisfies the individual needs of inhabitants, then the income as the purchasing power of inhabitants would lose its significance. Naturally, work will be further necessary to maintain or increase the social standard. Work will survive because it will become a value in itself. The work organization will be strictly determined and performed by management. Workers will always conduct work duties through work competition in productivity and responsibility by past labour points. That will force the most productive producers to agree on the joint production processes strategies. The work competition may develop to the point where associated producers will assume responsibility for the general satisfaction of all social needs.  

 

When income starts losing importance, the responsibility of workers will be paid only by past labour points. Accountability of workers will be established by mutual assessment of workers and the evaluations of customers. The system enables a ramified system of assessing the production quality of goods and services. Each positive assessment of a worker, workers in enterprises or inhabitants of a commune received from any inhabitant, consumer association, or arbitration courts will increase somewhat the total number of past labour points of a worker, workers in enterprises or inhabitants of a commune, thereby increasing the expression of their productive power. And vice versa, a negative assessment would burden the inhabitants, enterprises, and communes according to the degree of responsibility established directly by the population, consumer association, and arbitration courts. Sanctions will be carried out by subtraction of past labour points in the function of the received assessments and coefficient of worker’s responsibility.  

 

Such a system of valuation of conveniences and inconveniences may form natural norms for the relations in the society, which will to a great extent, replace the alienated normative decisions that govern the relationships of society by laws and regulations. Mutual assessment will form new unwritten rules of social relations, covering each pore of social behaviour, giving the community more significant benefits and prosperity.  

 

When the demand for work as a form of manifestation of the power of being, becomes more significant than the supply of jobs, the individual income would lose sense. When the population’s income starts abolishing, past labour points will remain as a form of the individual’s guarantee to meet obligations, as a factor of work competition, and measure of the individual’s existential power.

 

Over time, work competition could provide an opportunity for general work freedom of workers. Or differently said, workers could, at a certain degree of production development, choose work posts and working hours according to their wishes and possibilities in agreement with other workers. This is possible by automation of production through computer technology that would replace forced and inconvenient work and form suitable jobs based on individual, creative and constructive approaches and relaxing work.  

 

If coordination of activities without force is established and the needs become satisfied, income would entirely lose its importance. In contrast, the usable value of work as a manifestation of workers’ existential needs would remain. Once the work stops conditioning the material remuneration and starts basing its existence on the satisfaction based on free expression of being needs, it becomes a free work and a direct value for itself. 

 

Monetary assets would then no longer have the function of establishing payment transactions. Still, they would serve as a means of society for expressing individual and common needs. The money would not symbolize alienation separating the community of people anymore but will be a coordinator of homogeneous action in society. Then the relation of the individual toward another individual would no longer be the relation of commodities but the beings relation that suits the individual natural needs.

 

By accepting society’s natural laws, people should understand that work itself is a great value; individual to individual relations are an exceptional value, while goods will lose their alienated value. Values of work and production abundance will reduce the importance of money. One day, getting good evaluations from other people may become more important than earning money. Having desired jobs should also become more important than earning money. Today, some job positions are more attractive to people than money, but this is an exception. A developed work market will make all jobs equally desirable, and the process of disalienation might make jobs more desirable than earning money.

 

People should also understand that collective consumption is the most rational spending. As a result, one day, people will most likely allocate all their incomes directly towards taxes, making all goods and services available free of charge while establishing an efficient, stable, and rational democratically planned economy.

 

In such a system, the income of all people as a form of individual purchasing power would be equal to zero by direct voting of the population. The system would then achieve a free-of-charge production and consumption of commodities. This is communism, most likely the best social system possible. This is what Karl Marx desired but could not define—a flourishing society. In such a system, the individual will find new interests in the outer world and spiritual development. In communism, people will have the freedom to do what they love and indulge in work, science, philosophy, culture, arts, sports, entertainment, and relaxation through fun.

 

In such a system, all assets would be intended for collective spending. The collective spending will be established at the commune, state, and international levels by a direct vote of inhabitants. According to what has been said so far, it may be assumed that at a certain degree of development in the society, each consumer will be able to plan and order themselves the specific means of consumption. However, it is not realistic to expect that each inhabitant will need to determine all the necessary forms of consumption because such a list may be too extensive in detail. Instead, each inhabitant can influence the partial and global supply of the work products by the amount of money intended for certain forms of collective consumption and based on their own experience with the supply.  

 

The funds of collective spending can direct the overall consumption in society. The amount of money would further correspond to the overall value of goods, and all products would preserve the price set by agreement. The total amount of money and the costs of commodities will serve as an instrument for the democratic determination of production. The framework for the distribution of funds will be determined by consumer practice. The population will make corrections by pouring more money into the common consumption groups they need more. Then the production management will assign more work to the fields of increased interest, making people’s needs more satisfied. Further, each inhabitant can participate in the partial distribution of any fund to the level where they will find its interest. Such money will be necessary until society discovers a better method of coordination of its collective actions.  

 

Socialism enables the permanent coordination of a free system of production and distribution. The system has an infinite number of variants that may influence the social life and consciousness of the individual so that each individual in the society can achieve broad prosperity. It is also worth mentioning that the formation of a free-of-charge production and consumption is not the purpose of the proposed system but the finding genuine relationships in the society that such a system enables. The system will overcome antagonism among the people due to alienated needs, values, and actions. The highest value of the proposed socio-economic system lies in the possibility of creating natural and harmonious social relations that will form genuine needs and values.  

 

A new kind of ethics will be formed, where the individual will not need to assess another individual nor be assessed by any individual. Once individuals stop creating needs by comparing themselves with other individuals, they will become closer to their nature. They will form the kind of relations with nature and society that suits their nature. Past labour points may be the last alienated form of manifesting the individual’s power, which the individual will overcome by finding the values in themselves and their environment.

 

Once people recognize the natural laws of humanity, they will not have to go anywhere in search for what they need because all they need will be in their immediate environment or even closer—in themselves. The most important achievement of individuals is themselves. The more people get to know themselves, the more freedom, peace, joy, wisdom, and love they can achieve. In communism, people will have the best chances to realize a long and good quality of life. 

 

The conclusion of the book

 

History has shown that authoritarian social systems produce social problems, while social systems where people have more rights create better societies. This should be enough to conclude that the full implementation of equal human rights will make the best social system possible. Nevertheless, authorities prevent the knowledge of equal human rights to keep their privileges in society. As a result, social life was always based on generating personal power over people instead of equal human rights. As a result, people cannot reach social prosperity.

 

Equal human rights may solve social problems and provide the best life possible for all. Teachers will not need to teach people how to create a good society; equal human rights will spontaneously do it, and people will love the result of it. This paper tries to convince people that they cannot create more significant societal progress than implementing equal human rights. Nothing more is needed for building a bright future for humankind, and nothing less can make it. Equal human rights are the greatest invention of all time. Therefore, opening a public discussion about equal human rights is essential for building a bright future for humankind.

 

 

[1] Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970)

Commune Disalienation

3.1      Disalienation of the Commune 

 

The history of humankind is the history of the powerlessness of individuals and the rule of authorities; the history of authoritative, imposed and, therefore, alienated categories of values, alienated activities, and, consequently, alienated knowledge. The history of humankind is a history of alienation or alienated history.  

 

People believe that the development of science has significantly improved society compared to the past, but that is not entirely true. The development of science has brought new forms of social relations, which hide an ages-old need of an individual to rule over an individual. Today, most presidents swear about democracy, but in reality, they successfully avoid it as much as possible because they like to keep power in their own hands. Most priests pray to God that Jesus is coming soon, but in reality, they would want much more to retain the right to interpret Jesus’s words the way it suits them best. Most company owners swear about the free market, but they try hard to create a monopoly for themselves. Most teachers are convinced that they love to spread knowledge to students, but they prefer to rule over the students with the knowledge they have acquired. Most parents swear to God about their love for their children, but in reality, they love the power over their children. The situation almost everywhere follows the pattern of these samples. All people incline toward privileges. The problem is that privileges are evil for people and society as a whole.

 

There is no doubt that all these authorities suppress the people at every moment of their lives. Once the individuals become aware of themselves in such a society, they are already under the influences of alienated generations and are forced to accept the alienated world as the other world they do not see. If the individuals try to overcome the inconveniences that stem from alienation, it would be hard for them to reach any good result. The obstacles of the alienated society made them think through the alienated premises of comprehending the causes of the inconveniences. After all, the alienation has taken their abilities to recognize their natural needs.

 

Due to the lack of objective knowledge, the alienated society is subject to a random selection of determinations that stem from the alienated visions of conveniences. Such a society inclines toward idolatry, fetishism, and a very superficial outlook on life. The individual in an alienated society bases their own belief in the conveniences on alienated assumptions and, sooner or later, experiences disappointment. They contradict their nature, which brings them great inconveniences. When individuals’ alienated needs come across obstacles in real life, their vision of survival in their alienated consciousness is endangered. Then the same doubt in the correctness of their orientation brings tension that pushes them to strive for the alienated vision of survival. Such a struggle may, without objective reasons, endanger other people.  

 

The endangering of the alienated needs of individuals brings along aggression by which the alienation may be recognized. Such an individual is waiting for any opportunity or authoritative invitation to act aggressively. If the individual forms a narcissistic vision of consciousness, they then induce great destruction toward their environment. A destructively oriented individual terminates the conditions for exercising their benefits. Instead of purifying their thoughts, concluding within the limits of their possibilities, and then moving forward, such an individual passes through life blindly, favouring their impotence and problems.  

 

If external forces are too strong, the individual may suppress their natural needs. Such a suppression induces non-defined anxiety in the individual throughout everyday life. Separation of life from the individual’s nature brings neurotic disorders and depressive states. The individual frequently finds a way out of such conditions in a temporary restrain of emotions by using alcohol, drugs or medicaments.    

 

The more the individual is alienated from their nature, the higher the deviations of their personality are. Also, contradictions in the individual become more significant, and they have less control over their emotional states. The individual is then inclined to any form of self-destruction. In extreme cases, due to non-satisfied needs, alienation generates tension of such proportions that the individual cannot objectively comprehend nature. Such an individual is an ill individual, and such a society is a sick society.  

 

Whatever the individual does in life, they do it intending to reach prosperity. However, in the present-day alienated society, where subjective, erroneous categories of values are created, the effect is the opposite. The alienated individual lives along with the principle of their negation; they act against their nature because they cannot recognize their nature.

 

The problem of society’s alienation is broad and deep, and therefore it should be faced comprehensively. The presented analysis may conclude that all inconvenient social phenomena arise from the individual’s inability or lack of knowledge and alienation originating from authoritative suppression. In this connection, one can conclude that all socially positive phenomena may arise from knowledge acquired in natural life based on the freedom and equality of all individuals because the individual’s productive power may develop only in this way.  

 

The individual’s power over other individuals is undoubtedly the main problem of today’s society. People must reject the authorities and subjective knowledge they imposed and establish equal human rights to gain objective knowledge. Society should form a system able to exist productively in the freedom and equality of all its members without the authorities and their ideologies. It would need to allow each individual to acquire knowledge through their practice. An individual can hardly form an accurate idea about the laws of nature because autonomy directs them toward subjective determinations and, consequently, towards alienation. Society, as a gathering of subjective individuals, might form a more objective vision of reality through the practice of equal rights among the members of society. Equal human rights are essential for learning the natural laws and objective categories of values. This will allow individuals and society to come closer to their nature and prosperity. 

 

***

 

Authorities have always strongly opposed the establishment of equal human rights. However, people also fiercely resisted the authorities and thus managed to increase human rights. As a result, the United Nations has established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has improved the world.

 

However, the authorities have also developed their ability to prevent the development of human society. On the way to avoiding equal human rights and retaining power and privileges in society, they have transformed into the elite that, through enormous financial power, strongly influences and controls the media, science, and politics, which controls the people. They still have dictatorial control in society, which is less visible but very controlling. The elite have accepted equal human rights mainly on a formal level, but in fact, human rights are not equal. Presidents of countries may send people to war, while people cannot do so to presidents. Employers may fire employees, which increases unemployment, while workers cannot lower unemployment to get jobs back. Teachers force students to accept knowledge, while students cannot force it upon teachers.

 

One may say that equal human rights have only been partially established. But there is no such thing as partial equal human rights because such rights are not equal. Unequal human rights form privileged authorities who prevent the establishment of a prosperous society. Therefore, the lack of equal human rights ought to be considered the leading cause of problems in society.

 

Throughout the history of humankind, authorities have managed to alienate social scientists from the cause of social problems. The foundation of social sciences is still based on knowledge authorities have imposed on society. For example, most laws today are based on ancient Roman law. Thus, countries still have imprisonment sentences and, in some cases, death penalties which means they did not develop much from dictatorial times. Under the influence and pressure of authorities, social sciences have not recognized the natural laws of society. As a result, social scientists cannot solve the problems of society. They give the impression that natural social laws cannot be defined due to the complexity of social relations. They do not even believe that it is possible to create a good society.

 

This paper suggests that social knowledge created by authorities cannot build a good society. It already would if it could. Also, social learning built on top of the alienation authorities impose cannot be correct. A good community requires creating new social knowledge based on equal human rights. People with equal rights may develop more objective social understanding than subjective authorities. Equal human rights are entirely opposite to hierarchical relationships and have a wholly different set of logic and results. Also, this paper claims that equal human rights may permanently prevent the power-hungry authorities from oppressing people. Thus, building equal human rights is essential for creating a bright future for humankind. This book presents how to achieve it.

                                                                       

The theory of equal human rights has a significant realization problem. Privileged people do not like equal human rights because it takes privileged power from them. The rich despise equal human rights and suppress them with their financial capability. Politicians would not like to lose their control by implementing equal human rights. Social scientists are reluctant to accept the knowledge necessary for equal human rights implementation because it confronts their acquired knowledge. As a result, politicians, media, social sciences and the rich prevent equal human rights. Thus, they block the bright future for humankind. This book fights back by presenting the importance of equal human rights.

 

***

 

Society has interrupted the equal right to work by allowing the existence of unemployment. Unemployed people must accept poorly paid jobs to feed themselves. It causes the exploitation of workers. Equal human rights are supposed to bring justice to the economy by shortening work hours until unemployment is removed. It will raise the demand for workers and their salaries in the free market until exploitation is eliminated. Then workers will have greater purchasing power, and the economy will grow. Such policy would solve today’s socio-economic problems and build good capitalism.

 

Equal human rights are supposed to improve the economy significantly. One day, every worker will be able to work at every public work post they want at any time. Every public job post will be filled by a worker who offers higher productivity, more responsibility, and demands a lower wage. It is nothing else but a developed market of work open at all times. Such an economy cannot be realized soon, but private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies once it is established. This will send capitalism down in history. This idea presents an enormous opportunity for economic improvement capable of building good socialism.

 

Finally, equal human rights should mean that all people have equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Everyone should be given equal rights to judge other people’s actions. Each positive evaluation should bring a small award to the assessed person, and each negative evaluation should result in a small punishment. Such a policy would make everyone work hard to please others and avoid hurting anybody. This right of people will form a good society. The equal evaluating power among people presents a new form of democracy, and the freedom of evaluation presents a new form of anarchy. Therefore, such a policy can be called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy alone should be capable of building a bright future for humankind.

 

Natural laws of society are the missing foundation in social sciences necessary for creating a good society. A good society is a result of understanding its natural laws. The purpose of this study is to explain this theory and provide evidence for the achieved results as much as it is possible.  

 

This book defines the process of disalienation in society. To perform the process of disalienation, one must establish freedom and equal rights among people. Equal rights among people and democracy that really gives power to people will seize power from the authorities and create a sound and sane society. This book presents how such a society can be built. The book emphasizes political and economic relations because they are fundamental societal relations.

 

***

Let the primary economic and political community be a commune. Let the commune include the territory of the smallest society able to exist relatively autonomously or the biggest society that offers a good insight into joint activities. It may be assumed that a commune has from 100,000 up to 1,000,000 inhabitants. Still, it may also relate to a small community with several people associated on a regional basis up to, theoretically, associated people of the entire world. 

 

Therefore, the commune is a part of a state and is bound to respect the state laws. The commune has the right to autonomy to the extent permissible by the state laws. It is necessary to suppose here the favourable orientation of the society. This means that the state will allow autonomy of the commune to the extent that will enable the optimal development of the community. The commune organizes its internal order. The commune has an administration consisting of a legislative assembly, a judicial and an executive body. They operate the same as today.

  

Kapitalizam

2.2.1        Kapitalizam

 

Kapitalizam je društveno ekonomski sistem u kojem se sredstva za proizvodnju nalaze u privatnom vlasništvu. Otac moderne kapitalističke ekonomije je Adam Smith. On je tržišnu ekonomiju kapitalizma prikazao kaonevidljivu ruku koja navodi privatne proizvođače da promoviraju društveni interes kroz realizaciju vlastitog interesa. Tržište ima princip u kojem potrošači slobodno kupuju robu koja im više odgovara a proizvođači se trude da proizvode robu koja više odgovara potrošačima. Tako društvo u cjelini ostvaruje veće kupovne pogodnosti. Vlasnici kapitala su prisiljeni odgovorno usmjeravati svoju proizvodnju jer svaki neuspjeh u proizvodnji moraju pokriti svojim kapitalom. Radnici su prisiljeni raditi odgovorno jer u suprotnom gube posao. Kapitalistički oblik proizvodnje stvara sistemsku odgovornost koja donosi visoku produktivnost.

 

Velika tehnološka otkrića u povijesti čovječanstva kao što su parni stroj, električna energija ili informacijska tehnologija, uvijek donose velik porast produktivnosti privrede što omogućava znatno povećanje potrošnje. Veća produktivnost donosi veću dobit proizvođača, koji onda mogu više kupovati i proces se progresivno obnavlja. Tada privreda doživljava ekspanziju proizvodnje. U ekspanziji proizvodnje javlja se velika potražnja za osposobljenom radnom snagom. Ukoliko potražnja za radnom snagom postane veća od ponude radne snage, tada radnici mogu birati radna mjesta i zahtijevati veći dohodak. Društvo u cjelini ekonomski prosperira.

 

Međutim, kapitalizam ima i svoju vrlo mračnu stranu. Kada potražnja za radnom snagom postane manja od ponude radne snage, tada radnici moraju prihvatiti loše plaćene poslove kako bi mogli zaraditi za život. Tada poslodavci malo plaćaju radnike kako bi više mogli zaradili na njima. Tako nastaje nepravda u procesu proizvodnje poznata pod imenom eksploatacija radnika. U kapitalizmu su radna mjesta gotovo uvijek više tražena nego radnici i to osigurva permanentnu eksploataciju radnika koja je izvor velikih problema u kapitalizmu.

 

Kada radnici nemaju dovoljno veliku kupovnu moć oni ne mogu dovoljno kupovati robu. Smanjena potražnja za proizvodima rada donosi probleme privredi jer otežava plasman proizvoda privrede. Ukoliko privreda ne uspije pronaći nove tokove potražnje mora smanjiti produktivnost da izbjegne gubitke. Tada privreda doživljava recesiju. Recesija proizvodnje u tržišnoj privredi rezultira smanjenjem dobiti poduzeća. Nedovoljno produktivne kompanije ne mogu osigurati svoju ekonomsku egzistenciju, što rezultira njihovim bankrotima. U recesiji proizvodnje radnici gube posao i ne zarađuju novac. Što manje radnici zarađuju, to je manja kupovna moć društva, pa potražnja za proizvodima rada opada, što dovodi do veće recesije.

 

Tokom recesije tržišne privrede pojavljuju se mnogo značajnije razlike u raspodjeli pogodnosti u društvu od onih koje zajednica koja teži svom prosperitetu treba dopustiti. S jedne strane su ljudi koji nemaju osnovna ljudska prava da osiguraju ekonomski opstanak, a s druge strane su bogati ljudi koji imaju puno više nego što im je objektivno potrebno. To nije dobra osnova za ostvarenje dobre budućnosti.

 

Tržišna privreda kapitalizma nema zadovoljavajuću kontrolu prelaza između stanja ekspanzije i recesije proizvodnje. Tržište takve poremećaje rjesava bolnom uspostavom ravnoteže u kojoj obespravljeni radnici najviše stradavaju. Tržišna privreda kapitalizma ne može osigurati stabilnu zaposlenost radnika, stabilnu proizvodnju i raspodjelu. Ona ne može ostvariti stabilno društvo.

 

***

 

Pobjednici na slobodnom tržištu se bogate a gubitnici propadaju. Pobjednici uz pomoć novonastalog bogatstva ostvaruju veću moć i potiskuju nove gubitnike sa tržišta. Tako velike korporacije preuzimaju kontrolu nad tržištem a mala poduzeća gube svoj udio u tržištu. Vlasnici korporacija se sve više bogate a narod je sve siromašniji. 

 

Kapitalisti su u svrhu stimuliranja radnih aktivnosti građana iz koje vuku korist, potisnuli principe kooperacije među ljudima i nametnuli sistem konkurencije. Iz toga proizlazi strah i egoizam u kojem čovjek čovjeku postaje vuk koji se bori za opstanak. Iz toga proizlazi destruktivnost praktično na svim poljima društvenog odnošenja.

 

Kapitalistička propaganda propovijeda sistem liberalnog kapitalizma kao sistem koji daje svakome podjednaku šansu što naravno nije istina jer se bogataši nalaze u izrazito povlaštenom položaju u svakom pogledu. Sistem je okrutan prema gubitnicima i to se vidi na primjeru Amerike. Amerika je najbogatija zemlja u svijetu ali u njoj postoje ogromni socijalni problemi.

 

Ljudi teško rade po cijele dane za malu nadnicu i još su u stalnom strahu od gubitka posla. Oni nemaju zadovoljavajuće zdravstveno osiguranje jer je skupo. Oko 20% Amerikanaca nema nikakvo zdravstveno osiguranje. U 1993 godini, radnik sa minimalnim dohotkom u Americi, kakvih ima vrlo velik broj, je zaradio 60.000 puta manji dohodak od Predsjednika i CEO Walt Disney korporacije.

 

Ogromne socijalne razlike razvijaju kriminal u Americi. Građani Amerike često ne izlaze iz kuća kad padne mrak jer se osjećaju nesigurnim. Gotovo 1% stanovnika Amerike se nalazi u zatvoru i još toliko se vodi u kaznenim postupcima. Tu se radi o gotovo pet miliona ljudi i zato se ne može govoriti samo o kriminalu nego o političkom problemu nezdravog sistema.

 

Prosječni Amerikanac je moderni rob bogataša a propaganda ga je uvjerila da je slobodan. On je toliko indoktriniran propagandom da i ne zna da može biti bolje. Amerika je vjerojatno najotuđenija zemlja svijeta, puna stresa, psihičkih bolesnika, zemlja sa velikom stopom alkoholizma, narkomanije i kriminala, zemlja rasturenih brakova, samotnjaka, čudaka. Godišnje jedan od 10.000 stanovnika SAD izvrši samoubistvo. Navedene informacije nalaze se u knjizi “Prljave istine” Michaela Parentija.[1]

 

I nema vidljivog izlaza iz problema kapitalizma. To je zato što bogati ljudi potiskuju znanje potrebno za poboljšanje društva. To potiskivanje je organizirano kroz politiku, medije i sistem obrazovanja. Glavni predmet u svim školama je učenje poslušnosti prema autoritetima. Studenti kroz obrazovanje uče da je kapitalizam najprosperitetniji društveni sistem pa ga ne pokušavaju promijeniti nego se trude da se uklope u ciljeve kapitalizma. Tako obrazovanje postaje temelj otuđenja društva. Otuđeni ljudi ne mogu pronaći izlaz iz lošeg života.

 

***

 

Kapitalizam ima svoje unutrašnje kontradikcije koje ga stalno uvlače u krize. Prevelike ekonomske razlike među ljudima i državama, naziru velike probleme u budućnosti, počevši od nekontroliranih migracija sa kriminalom svakojake vrste pa do ratova. Osim toga kapitalizam je izgradio pretjerano veliku proizvodnju koja besmisleno rasipa prirodna bogatstva. Nedostatak prirodnih resursa koji je sa takvim rasipanjem neminovan, će dovesti ljude pred borbu za opstanak. Ako se nešto značajno ne promijeni to će prije ili kasnije dovesti do ratova u kojima će veliki dio čovječanstva biti izbrisan sa lica zemlje. To se mora spriječiti formiranjem daleko boljeg društva.

 

Ideologija kapitalističkog liberalizma ne može više doprinositi razvoju društva. Došlo je vrijeme da on ode. Ono što danas najviše čuva kapitalizam je nepostojanje boljeg sistema koji bi ga mogao zamijeniti. Ova knjiga predstavlja dobar kapitalizam koji će biti prekretnica u razvoju društva. Dobar kapitalizam mora doprinijeti razvoju jednakih prava među ljudima. On će skratiti radno vrijeme radnika kako bi svi ljudi imali pravo na rad. Ukidanje nezaposlenosti povećat će potražnju za radnicima, čime će oni zarađivati više novca. Kvaliteta života za sve ljude će se poboljšati. To nije lak zadatak za kapitalizam. U svrhu poboljšanja ljudskog života i okoline u kojoj ljudi žive, budućnost će zahtijevati uvođenje kooperacije izmedju radnika, kompanija i država. Posljednje je neostvariv zadatak za kapitalizam što znači da su radikalne promjene političkog i ekonomskog sistema nužnost ostvarenja bolje budućnosti čovječanstva.

 

[1] Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths, http://www.michaelparenti.org/DirtyTruths.html

Socialism

 

 

2.2.2   Socialism

 

Karl Marx witnessed enormous exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production. He fought for justice by defining capitalism and its contradictions[1]. His principles for building communism were a visionary work of a genius. But he also made mistakes. Karl Marx is an authority in social sciences, and without pointing to his mistakes, it would be hard to build a better society.

 

Karl Marx correctly defined the exploitation of workers by analyzing the surplus value of work. However, Marx did not specify what salary workers objectively need to earn, not to be exploited, because it is impossible to determine by any observation or calculation. Only workers’ satisfaction with salaries may present the elimination of exploitation, and it can be achieved by a fair market where jobs and workers are equally demanded. However, Karl Marx believed that economic equality is the only justifiable system, which implies that all jobs should be equally valued, making the salaries uniform until, according to him, workers would be able to consume goods as much as they want.

 

Marx thought that the market economy caused workers’ exploitation, so he proposed eliminating the market and replacing it with a production organized by workers. In The Communist Manifesto, he introduced the slogan, “proletarians of the world unite” to take control over production and organize the production through the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” However, Karl Marx did not define how this economy was supposed to work. He believed that workers would plan and organize the production to satisfy their needs.

 

Production organized by workers required social ownership of the means of production. According to Marx, social ownership of the means of production would eliminate the deficiencies of capitalism. He was right about it, even though the methods to achieve such a goal were not yet successful. Karl Marx named the first phase of production under social ownership of the means of production “the lower stage of communism.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin established the principle of production in the lower stage of communism as from each according to his ability, to each according to his work,[2] which later Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin named socialism. Socialism was supposed to release workers from capitalist exploitation and create a just society.

 

Considering that capitalists would never let workers decide about their capital, Karl Marx proposed in The Communist Manifesto a revolutionary takeover of private properties as the solution to build a good society[3]. He justified revolution and the confiscation of private property because capitalists had made their capital on exploiting workers, which is generally accurate to a great extent. Nevertheless, if some people invest years constructing machines to replace many workers, should they not earn more than other workers? Marxian socialists have not found it acceptable, advocating for the equality of people. However, wage inequality should be a philosophical problem, and a good solution should be found democratically.

 

Karl Marx did not define the term revolution, so some Marxian philosophers questioned his violent intentions even in the Communist Manifesto[4]. Still, they have never explained how the socialist revolution can be performed peacefully. This book defines a peaceful socialist revolution for the first time. Marxian revolutionaries have been building socialism only by using force. Although violent revolutions may replace a particular social injustice, they have always been replaced with a new kind. To ensure the lasting effect of revolutions, the revolutionary leadership must be autocratic and oppress people. The power of oppression prevents equal human rights, blocking chances for building a better society. Therefore, calling for revolutions should be the last option to reach social justice and only when extreme oppression of workers occurs.

 

By appropriating the means of production from capitalists, socialism has practically denied the value of past work, which opened a new problem. In capitalism, the owners of capital pay responsibility for the production with their capital, the accumulated value of their past work. Capital made capitalists very responsible in the production processes. By denying the significance of past work, socialism has not had a successful method for paying workers’ responsibility in production processes. Furthermore, Marx knew that removing the market economy removes productivity indicators, so he called upon worker conscience to replace it. Marx tried to impose responsible production by calling on the conscience of workers.

 

Karl Marx believed that a highly developed human conscience would be capable of providing a responsible society, and he was right about this. He also thought people would build a conscience in their interests. However, no significant improvement in conscience has ever been realized, nor has society learned how to achieve it. Nothing conscious may come from the need for authorities to control people. The power of authorities increases their narcissism, which intensifies the oppression of people producing troubles for society rather than advantages. The authoritative oppression of people generates fear, which cannot develop people’s conscience, and a better community can hardly be built. Release from fear of authorities usually creates irresponsible narcissism in people, causing problems for society. Criminals would always find an excuse for whatever crime they commit. Therefore, calling for the conscience of non-conscious people is illusory. Only the freedom of responsible people may form peoples’ conscience, and according to the principles of this book, only equal human rights can provide it.

 

Marx’s assumption that an economy controlled by the proletariat would successfully follow people’s needs was doomed right from the beginning because no economy could satisfy the needs of greedy people. Greedy people are inevitable in societies without equal human rights because every inferiority is a nest for superiority needs. Moreover, even in the case of ideal democracy, people can hardly agree on anything. Workers have never had efficient control of production through their “dictatorship.” The most developed self-management production was established in socialist Yugoslavia, where production decisions were based on workers’ approval in the worker councils. In practice, such decision-making was time-consuming, and if production failed, the decisions made by workers relieved managers of their responsibilities. “It deteriorated production efficiency and led to economic disaster[5].” There is no better production choice but to select the best workers, including managers, for every work post, letting them freely produce the best they can while making them highly responsible to society for whatever they do. This book presents such an economy.

 

Marx’s idea of a democratically planned economy was noble and correct, but he did not have any evidence based on a previous model that it could work nor an idea of how it could work. Unfortunately, Marxists still do not have it. Socialism has had a big problem determining how to establish a social policy to satisfy people’s needs. By abandoning the market economy, socialism has lost efficient measures for selecting productive workers and managers to achieve a prosperous production. As a result, the revolutionary authorities had to control production to make such an economy produce anything at all. Thus, the socialist revolutions replaced experienced entrepreneurs with inexperienced revolutionaries who could not provide a more successful production organization than capitalism.

 

By abandoning the market economy, the socialist authorities had no other choice but to plan society’s basic production. For example, they planned how many tons of wheat they needed to feed people. They were relatively successful in planning the needs of the state. They were capable of developing science. However, people’s individual needs were barely considered because socialist leaders could not even gather them. The authorities have also had difficulties managing more complex production processes from one center. As a result, people were not hungry, but their material needs were less satisfied than in capitalism. As a result, socialist production was less satisfactory than capitalist production.

 

In an attempt to create a just distribution of incomes, Karl Marx replaced the market value of work with the labour theory of value he accepted from Adam Smith and David Ricardo and adapted to his philosophy. According to this theory, “the cost of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labour hours required to produce that commodity.” Marx’s definition of the labour theory of value implies that workers’ labour values are equal. Thus, according to him, the total number of workers’ labour hours in producing commodities equally forms the commodities’ objective cost. This was the starting point of Marx’s philosophy of equality among people, which is supposed to eliminate workers’ exploitation.

 

However, such a cost of commodities cannot objectively represent the labour value because Marx’s definition does not differentiate between productive and non-productive work, responsible and irresponsible work, and challenging and easy work. Karl Marx probably assumed that equality of workers would involve their optimal effort in producing commodities, but it did not happen.

 

Socialism did work hard to bring economic justice to society. It eliminated unemployment by providing the necessary right to work to all. Everyone got a job even though their work was not demanded enough in their communities. Socialists balanced salaries regardless of work positions, productivity, efforts, and responsibilities, which built a more harmonious society than capitalism could establish. However, a balanced wage gap in socialism was not motivating for work. The humanist ideology of socialism had protected work positions that, to some extent, contributed to the irresponsibility of workers. The socialist authorities have not had another choice but to increase bureaucracy and decrease workers’ incentives, including that of managers. Thus the socialist economy obstructed its possibility of development.

 

Another challenge for a centrally planned economy is that production has little to do with the market’s demand and supply. Store shelves in socialist Eastern Europe were sometimes, if not often, empty. However, commodities were available on the black market, proving the need for the market economy. The result of the socialist economy was poor.

 

Finally, socialism did not destroy classes as Marx desired. Political leaders were high-class citizens. They did not need salaries much because they were privileged and got most of what they needed for free. People did not fight to earn more money but tried to get as close as possible to the political elite because it gave them privileged power in society. This brought corruption with all its negative phenomena, which damaged socialism.

 

The USSR and China accepted the centrally planned economy. As a result, their economies had lower productivity than capitalist economies. The USSR collapsed due to peoples’ dissatisfaction coming from the inefficiency of the centrally planned economy. China has learned from its mistakes, abandoned the Marxist planned economy in 1978, and accepted the regulated market economy. From that moment, it has become the fastest-growing economy globally, threatening to take the number one place. This should prove the shortcomings of the Marxian economy.

 

Socialism was indeed created as a noble attempt to form human society, but it did not work. Karl Marx did not have enough data to build socialism and communism, so he wrote almost nothing about them. His followers have created socialism by oppressing people, which could not bring favourable results. No science can fix problems originating from a lack of human rights. As a result, socialism was ineffective.

 

The main question of the Marxist economy is why Marx did not insist on shorter work hours to increase the workers’ salaries and reduce or eliminate the exploitation of workers? Marx most likely gave up on it because he observed how hard it was to make any agreement between employers and workers. However, reducing or eliminating the exploitation through shorter work hours should have been thoroughly presented to people no matter how hard it was to implement it. Today, struggling for shorter work hours is incomparably simpler and more rational than igniting violent revolutions and completely changing the socio-economic system.

 

Karl Marx suggested that alienation in production processes should be eliminated through workers’ cooperation and control of production processes, and he was correct in it. Still, no method to achieve such a goal has been successfully created. The political Left has tried to confront capitalism by developing cooperatives that practice the collaboration of workers in decision-making processes. Realizing this idea is problematic because workers have different needs, so reaching agreements about production matters is challenging. Successful cooperatives are rather an exception than a type of production that might replace capitalism. Only a more productive economy can replace capitalism. This study intends to define it.

 



[1] Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, 1867 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1984)

[2] Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lenin, The State and Revolution (New Delhi: Bahri Publication, 2017)

[3] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (London: Penguin, 1983) 

[4] Adam Schaff, Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence, Journal of the History of Ideas,(University of Pennsylvania Press, 1973) Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 263-270.

[5] Peter H. Liotta, Paradigm Lost: Yugoslav Self-Management and the Economics of Disaster (OpenEdition Journals, 2001) VOL. V, N° 1-2, https://doi.org/10.4000/balkanologie.681