Category: Book Humanism

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.

  

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

 

Capitalism

 

2.2.1   Capitalism

 

Capitalism is a socio-economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. The father of the modern capitalist economy is Adam Smith. He presented the market economy of capitalism as the “invisible hand,” which leads private producers to promote the public interest through the implementation of self-interest. The principle inherent in the commodity market is that consumers freely purchase the goods that suit them best while producers try to produce commodities more suitable to consumers. Thus, society achieves great purchasing benefits.

 

Capital owners are forced to responsibly direct their production because they must cover any failure in production with their capital. Workers are forced to work responsibly or otherwise; they lose their jobs. The capitalistic form of production creates systemic responsibility that achieves high productivity. The great technological discoveries of the history of humankind, such as the steam engine, electricity and information technology, always brought along an enormous rise in productivity for the economy, which increased consumption substantially. Higher productivity brings higher profits to producers, who purchase more, and the process grows progressively. The economy then experiences an expansion in production. When production develops, strong demand for a skilled labour force also emerges. If the labour market exceeds its supply, the workers may choose the work posts that bring them more conveniences and demand adequate wages. Society generally prospers in economic terms. 

 

However, capitalism also has its very dark side. When the demand for labour becomes less than the supply, workers must accept poorly paid wages to earn a living. Then employers underpay workers so they can make more profit. This creates injustice in the production process, known as the exploitation of workers. In capitalism, jobs are almost always more in demand than workers, which ensures the permanent exploitation of workers. This is the source of great problems in capitalism.

 

When workers do not have enough purchasing power, they cannot buy enough goods. Reduced demand for labour products brings problems to the economy because it makes it harder to sell the economy’s products. If the economy fails to find production demand, it must reduce productivity to avoid losses. Then the economy experiences a recession. A recession in a market economy results in a reduction in corporate profits. Insufficiently productive companies cannot secure their economic existence, which results in their bankruptcies. In a production recession, workers lose their jobs and do not earn money. The less workers earn, the lower the purchasing power of society, so the demand for labour products decreases, which leads to a more significant recession.

 

During the recession of a market economy, the differences appearing in the distribution of the conveniences in the society are much more significant than those that the community aspiring for its prosperity needs to allow. On one side are people without fundamental human rights to ensure economic survival and on the other side are wealthy people who have much more than they objectively need. It is not a sound basis for a promising future.

 

The market economy of capitalism does not have sufficient control over transitions between expansion and recession in production. The market solves these disorders by establishing a painful balance where the disempowered workers suffer the most. The market economy of capitalism cannot provide stable employment for workers, steady production, or distribution. Therefore, it cannot achieve a stable society.

 

***

 

The winners of the free market get richer while the losers fail. With the help of the new wealth, the winners build greater production power and suppress more companies from the market. Thus, large corporations take over the market, and small companies lose market share. The owners of corporations become increasingly wealthy while the people become poorer and poorer.

 

To stimulate the working activity of citizens from which capitalists draw out benefits, they have suppressed the principles of cooperation among the people and have imposed a system of competition. This results in fear for survival and egotism, in which an individual becomes a wolf to another individual. Everyone fights for survival. Consequently, it destroys good social relationships practically in all fields of social behaviour.

 

The capitalist propaganda propagates the system of liberal capitalism as a system that offers equal opportunity to everybody. This is not true since the rich hold a markedly privileged position in any respect. Privileges are based on substantial capital that helps them push the competition away. The system is ruthless towards the losers, which can be seen well in the example of the United States of America. The United States of America is the wealthiest country globally. However, this state has enormous social problems

 

People work hard for low wages and live in permanent fear of losing their job. As a general rule, they do not have adequate health insurance because it is costly. About 20% of the citizens of the US do not have any health insurance. In 1993, a worker with a minimum wage income in the USA, one of many in that bracket, earned a personal salary 60,000 times smaller than the President and the CEO of Walt Disney Corporation.

 

The enormous social differences develop crime in the United States. Americans often do not leave their homes after it gets dark because they do not feel safe. Almost 1% of the US population is in prison, and the same percentage is under criminal proceedings. It is a matter of nearly 5 million people, and therefore one cannot speak of criminal problems but about the political problem of the unhealthy social system. 

 

The average American is a modern slave of the rich, and propaganda has persuaded them that they are free. The propaganda brainwashes them, so they do not even know that the situation can be better. The USA is probably the most alienated country globally, full of stress, patients with psychological diseases, a state with a high rate of alcoholism, drug addiction and crime, the land of broken marriages, loners, and eccentric people. Annually one of ten thousand inhabitants of the USA commits suicide. The information provided is found in the book “Dirty Truths” by Michael Parenti.[1]

 

There is no visible way out of the problem of capitalism. This is because wealthy people suppress the knowledge needed to improve society. This repression is organized through the media, politics, and education system. The main subject in all schools is learning obedience to authorities. Through education, students learn that capitalism is the most prosperous social system, so they do not try to change it but instead try their best to adapt to the imposed goals of capitalism. Thus education becomes the foundation of the alienation of society. Alienated people are prevented from finding a good life.

 

***

 

Capitalism has internal contradictions that constantly drag it into crises. Today one can witness extreme economic disparities among countries and people. This outlines significant problems in the future, starting with crime and uncontrolled migration to all kinds of wars. Moreover, capitalism is built on the massive production, which wastes our natural resources senselessly. The wasteful spending of natural resources inevitably leads people to fight for economic survival. If something does not significantly change sooner or later, it will lead to wars in which a large part of humanity will be erased from the face of the earth. It must be prevented by forming a far better society.

 

The ideology of capitalist liberalism can no longer contribute to the development of society. The time has come to let it go. What preserves capitalism mostly is the lack of a better system to replace it. This book represents good capitalism that will be a turning point in the development of society. Good capitalism must contribute to the development of equal rights among people. It will shorten the working hours of workers to let all people have the right to work. The elimination of unemployment will increase the demand for workers, making them earn more money. The quality of life for all people will improve. It is not an easy task for capitalism. To improve human life and the environment in which people live, the future of humankind will require the introduction of cooperation between workers, companies and states. The latter is an impossible task for capitalism, which means that radical changes in the political and economic system are necessary for achieving a better future for humanity.

 

 


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

C

Sociology of Alienation

2.2      Sociology of Alienation

 

Dictatorship of Autocracy 

 

By their nature, each individual aspires to a higher power to accomplish more significant benefits. An individual becomes aware of their power by comparing themselves with other individuals. This study shows that this act is alienated from human nature and harmful to oneself and society. But people have always compared themselves to other people, and society has no other choice but to accept such a situation until it finds an orientation that will overcome it.

 

The alienated individual can easily use their power to achieve superiority over others. Successful individuals exercise greater rights than other individuals, impose their wills upon society or, in short, exercise power in society. 

 

Power brings great-alienated conveniences, which is why people wage a ruthless struggle to accomplish their authority in all fields. In the history of humankind, the most blood was shed in the power struggle. In this struggle, a stronger, more skillful, more cunning or smarter individual wins and rules over society. The power, established by force, is irrefutably autocratic and represents a dictatorship. Dictators demonstrate their power in a particular territory by forming a state. They ensure the implementation of their decisions by using physical force and by the proclamation of ideologies. They independently establish the state order, laws, regulations, and rules for social relations. They have irrefutable legislative, executive and judiciary power in the state. These are enormous privileges that bring them considerable advantages in society. Dictators secure their rights and benefits by proclaiming ideologies.

Ideologies are a system of ideas and ideals that establish the basis of the organization of society. Dictators use ideologies to manipulate society and thus secure power in society. Ideologies mostly form subjective answers to questions that a “society that doesn’t know” can ask. They often relieve people of the painful tension of living in an unknown nature which frees them from unfavourable anxieties. A “society that doesn’t know” accepts any idea that brings benefits and stability to society.

The history of humankind is the history of imposed subjective knowledge by authorities. This manuscript considers authorities as individuals who have power over people. Subjective knowledge is a source of social alienation and problems in society. Thus, ideologies become the foundation of the alienation of society. Alienated knowledge alienates people from their nature and the possibility of escaping from their inferior position and creates long-term problems for society.

Dictators, of course, fundamentally prevent the establishment of equal human rights so that they can oppress, control and exploit people. Throughout history, resistance to dictators often resulted in the death penalty. People, including scientists, had to accept the subjective knowledge imposed by dictators. Once society takes alienated knowledge, it becomes a significant burden that hinders the development of society.

 

Under the impact of ideologies, followers respect dictators on a lasting basis, with great-alienated respect and awe. Such a society may be highly stable and homogenous. The characteristic of the relationship between the authorities and followers is that of supplements in the impotence, which mutually brings a great alienated power that can accomplish impressive acts, high stability in the society and illusory conveniences. Due to the strong links, the relationship between the authorities and followers may give an impression of love; however, it is not love. Love is the product of the individual’s freedom, knowledge, potency and belief in conveniences. The relationship between authority and followers is precisely the opposite. It is characterized by significant dependence, lack of knowledge and impotence and, therefore, always represents a sort of a sadomasochistic relationship and necessarily develops the same.  

 

On their route toward accomplishing significant benefits, a dictator exploits society. Dictators take from the follower’s freedom of expressing their views, freedom of decision-making and acting. This form of exploitation is markedly inconvenient for the followers, as it penetrates the individual’s essence; into what makes them an individual. Moreover, that form of exploitation allows unrestricted material exploitation of society, depriving people of the benefits of social work products.  

 

Authoritative power is privileged. Privileges provide an artificial confirmation of overcoming the impotence that forms a narcissistic feature of the character. A narcissistic dictator reduces the possibility of reaching the conveniences in the natural relationship between people and tries to accomplish significant benefits in greater exploitation of society. Naturally, greater exploitation cannot result in the satisfaction of the needs since alienated needs are, generally, insatiable. Non-satisfied alienated needs create an inconvenient tension that the individual cannot get rid of naturally. Then, the individual enjoys the perversion of their natural needs. In such circumstances, the authorities find satisfaction in a violent relationship with the followers.  

 

If alienation in society is more significant, the followers find convenience in sacrificing in favour of the dictator, which inevitably develops the disease of the community. In a markedly authoritative society, a productive activity cannot bring benefits. Only illusory benefits can be accomplished; the community lives a biologically inconvenient life.  

 

Autocrats never find the sources of inconvenience in their attitude regarding society. Instead, they transfer them to their subordinates, and even more, it suits them to pass them on to other social groups. False causes of the inconveniences and the impotence of society to accomplish benefits develop a group-narcissistic form of alienation.  

 

Such orientation glorifies one’s social group in relationship with others. As such a presentation is false, it quickly develops intolerance concerning other societies, creating nationalism, chauvinism, racism, fascism, and other inconvenient phenomena. Such phenomena, combined with the sizeable destructive energy of the non-satisfied alienated society, form a programme for aggression and all social conflicts. Non-satisfied society finds illusory liberation from the inconvenient tension and conveniences in the superiority accomplished by destruction. As group narcissism develops subjectivity to the extreme, it overvalues the potency of its group. Thus, it always overlooks the objective powers that surround the group, which finishes catastrophically for one’s social group.  

 

The less social knowledge, the greater the authoritativeness it creates, and alienation is higher; the less satisfied the natural needs in the society, the stronger the need for destruction in society, and thus the destruction of the society and social accomplishments is more significant. Destructiveness in society lasts until the elimination of the protagonists of the destructive needs because it is hard for such a society to comprehend the way of its constructive orientation.  

 

A society with more knowledge seeks greater freedom because it is the only way to accomplish significant benefits. It demands a share in the decision-making about the rules of collective activity. The dictator does not allow such requirements because they represent a loss of their vision of conveniences. Maintaining their power in the alienated consciousness of the dictator equates with the view of survival. Dictators have often claimed that God supported their power over people and people had to accept their opinion. However, according to the Bible, not even God wants power over people because it is fundamentally wrong.

 

When the requirements of autocrats significantly oppose the nature of society, tension develops that forces it to rebel against the power because there are limits “the society that knows” cannot tolerate. Society then directs its energy toward toppling dictators and their ideologies. On the other hand, suppose new forces sufficiently develop in the community, and the dictator gets lulled into its potency. In that case, new forces take over the control and form new rules of social behaviours that bring more significant benefits to society. 

 

 

Democracy 

 

Society at a higher level of knowledge, aware of the problems that the autocratic form of power brings along, forms the changes in social relations peacefully through mutual concessions made by both the authorities and the followers. In such a society, the autocratic power accepts to provide significant freedoms and fundamental rights to the subordinate members of society. In turn, the dictatorial regime gets compensatory concessions in some other forms of conveniences that are proportional to the benefits of the ruling.  

 

For example, monarchies that renounced their absolute power in favour of parliamentary democracy have retained their privileged status, titles, and holdings and often impact the creation of state policies. On the other hand, the monarchs who have not voluntarily renounced their power to parliamentary democracy have lost their privileges, holdings and frequently, even their lives.  

Since Ancient times, society has become aware of the importance of public participation in decision-making processes regarding issues of common interest. This awareness initiated the development of the roots of democracy. An ideal form of democracy should be carried out by a mutual agreement of all community members on the rules for collective action until a consensus is established. Unfortunately, reaching consensuses is often challenging because of the highly variable interests of people. People can hardly agree on something and can never agree on everything. On top of this, every society brings a vast number of decisions that all people cannot decide on, either due to lack of interest, knowledge, or time. In large social communities such as a state, an equal agreement on joint action cannot be achieved due to a large number of entities with a large number of different needs. Therefore, an ideal form of democracy based on mutual agreement of people at the state level is impossible to achieve.

Society has tried to solve such problems through representative democracy. In such a democracy, the people do not participate directly in decision-making processes but choose a party whose programs reflect their interests most. The freely organized individuals in the parties form the agenda of social relations and proclaim them to society. The voters in elections elect the plan that offers them the most significant benefits. The party that gets the largest number of votes in the polls takes power in society. Such election of power is well known today by the name Liberal democracy.  

 

The governments elected through a multiparty system tries to set and carry out the rules for social activity in the manner that suits the society to the most significant extent possible. The government that fails to meet the needs of the people loses people’s support and, consequently, loses power in the next election. The multiparty form of reaching power ensures a peaceful change of authorities without destructive phenomena in society, which is a significant advantage of the system.  

 

Such a democracy has many shortcomings. An elected government usually has no desire to meet the needs of those who did not vote for them, which leaves them dissatisfied. The significant deficiency of the multiparty system lies in the fact that successful parties mainly follow the interests of influential people. In the capitalism of the developed world, big donors finance significant parties and thus influence their decision-making. Politicians come and go and are therefore highly inclined to corruption. They may be corrupted by an attractive work post, career, earning, or friendship. In an immoral society, corruption can take the form of recognition, and in such circumstances, almost nobody can oppose it. In this way, influential rich people cunningly impose their interests also on traditionally leftist worker parties. As a result, practically no significant party would support the claims of the poor people deprived of their rights.    

 

If some politician tries to oppose the interests of the rich, they encounter obstacles everywhere. The rich control all allegedly free mass media in the developed world and advocate their interests. Such mass media will accuse the disobedient politician of not doing their job well, find some sin, and intrigue. A politician who tries to oppose the rich has to give up or end their career. Regardless of the public interest involved in the programmes of influential parties, they will, in the end, pursue the policy in favour of the rich.  

 

Wealthy owners of capital have created, with the help of political parties, a political system where they have control over society. They try to bring all influential factors into a community under their control, making their best effort not to leave anything to chance. The system is glorified through education, work, culture, mass media, social entertainment, sport, etc. When they do not like something, such as the philosophy presented in this book, it does not have access to the media, politics, science, and, consequently, the people.  

 

Since the “society that does not know” is easily convinced, it accepts the suggested alienated determinations of the capitalist system. Then, the person as an individual does not have any other choice but to accept the alienated rules imposed by wealthy people. Such rules determine the opinion and actions of people. Under the influence of enormous subtle propaganda, an individual accepts that what in society is good, funny, beautiful, tasty, etc. They become what society expects them to be and not what they need to be by their nature. Besides, they often do not have other choices because the alienated society rejects members who do not accept the adopted forms of thinking and acting. The individual passes through studious brainwashing practically throughout their lifetime, and, in the end, they do not critique the correctness of the system in which they live. Such an individual elects, as a rule, the parties that support the programmes of the wealthy owners of capital and the circle of the democratic farce thus close.

 

There is no need for more proof that liberal democracy is undemocratic because it represents a covert dictatorship. Thus, in the multi-party system, actual decision-making is alienated from the people, contributing to society’s alienation. An individual does not influence forming of the rules of joint action. An individual remains powerless.   

 

Socialism also established a representative democracy. In socialism, the people elect delegates who represent their needs in the assemblies. They are obliged to represent the interests of their electoral base in the formation of the rules of social behaviour in administrative bodies at all levels.

 

The delegate system of decision-making on joint action of society requires a broad discussion of every problem in every segment of society, where decisions are made and then implemented through delegates to administrative bodies that form the legislative, executive and judicial branches. In that way, a social order should be created that optimally satisfies social needs.

 

There have been attempts in history to create a democratic delegate system. Still, there have always been problems with the difficulty of reconciling the different interests of many entities with the capabilities of society and, of course, the need for authority to exercise power over society. So, such attempts failed, and the authorities regained power in society. Delegates no longer forwarded the needs of the people to the government but vice versa; they sent directives of the government to the people. Thus, socialism has become nothing but a dictatorship that hides behind democracy.

 

***

 

The practice has shown that the representative form of democracy is not just. It is rather a fraud than the demonstration of the power of people, by the people, for the people. People can hardly achieve their rights through democracy anywhere in the world. Does this mean that the people’s will cannot be carried out? That democracy cannot be developed? Scholars of social sciences do not see a solution to the problem of democracy and cannot establish any consensus on how a developed democracy should look. Establishing a developed form of democracy requires discovering a new pathway that will effectively implement people’s will. To reach such a way, one needs to think outside the box.

 

 

Humankind, throughout its history, has undergone a multitude of authoritarian and democratic revolutions. The interaction has improved society in two systems that exist today. The first is capitalism, which dominates the world, and then socialism, a less successful system, which remains in a few countries. Although capitalism is more successful than socialism, it is still far from a decent economic system. On the other hand, although socialism is a less successful system, one can learn some good from it. The following chapters present the advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

Psychology of Alienation

 

2.1           Psychology of Alienation

 

The individual is aware of the limitation of their knowledge and their impotence before nature. The lack of knowledge about nature brings sensorial and emotional inconveniences to the individual. Sensorial inconveniences are a product of a direct, painful relationship with nature. Emotional inconveniences are products of a reflective relationship with nature. The most apparent emotional state is the fear that is the consequence of the individual’s insufficient knowledge and impotence to oppose natural inconveniences. The individual rids themselves of the inconveniences within the limits of their possibilities.

 

If the individual does not accept their impotence where they are objectively unable to surpass it, they then form the need that exceeds their possibilities of realization. Since thoughts are free and may act independently of nature, under the pressure of the inconveniences caused by their impotence and the need to overcome it, the individual forms a subjective idea about nature and the laws of movements within it in the form that suits them. Suppose such subjective determinations overcome the obstacles in the relations with nature, which is possible since there is often no inconvenience in direct contact of the individual and the nature unknown to them. In that case, the individual relieves themselves of the inconvenient tension and accepts such determinations as accurate. 

 

The subjective vision gives the individual an illusion of power in nature, which brings quickly and easily the conveniences that are by their intensity identical to those arising from the real surpassing of the individual’s impotence in nature. The transition between reality and illusion is smooth and suitable, encouraging the individual to find the sources in each moment of life in search of greater conveniences. One may say that “the individual who does not know,” or, more precisely, an impotent individual, during their lifetime in the unknown, superior, or inconvenient nature, forms an indefinite number of determinations of nature; its parts and natural phenomena in the form that suits them. Such nature is no longer unknown because the individual “becomes familiar with it,” it is no longer superior because the individual “wins over it,” it does not belong to somebody else because the individual “annexes it.” By their subjective visions, the individual adopts nature to the determinations that suit them the best. However, such determinations are alienated from their objective essence.

 

Alienated determinations form an alienated conception of the conveniences and inconveniences in the individual’s mind, which creates alienated respect toward the powers in nature, alienated emotional states, alienated needs, and alienated actions. In this way, a subjective consciousness develops alienated knowledge. Therefore, alienated knowledge is false and forms an alienated mode of the individual’s living. The alienated style of living separates the individual mentally from their nature, and thus the process develops.

 

One may say that the individual alienates from their nature when they cannot accept the limitations of their nature. Individuals who cannot accept their weakness where they objectively cannot surpass it create a subjective vision of reality that alienates them from objective reality. 

 

Subjectivity creates alienation. However, a subjective vision also has some objective determinations. Absolute subjectivity would form an utterly alienated consciousness, and the individual as the protagonist of such consciousness would lose the possibility to exist. On the other hand, complete objectivity would build total naturalness, representing an ideal of the individual’s living. The relationship between objectivity and subjectivity represents the relationship between naturalness and its alienation. 

 

Alienated knowledge that illusorily resolves the issue of the individual’s impotence before the unknown nature may find justification if it mainly contains the objective determinations of the laws of nature’s movements. Such knowledge, although not accurate, does not have to come necessarily in direct conflict with natural powers and releases the individual from the inconvenient tension of the relationship with the unknown.

 

Alienated knowledge loses its justification when it diverts the individual from their natural path. The individual can never fully meet the alienated needs because no activity can capture the nature of the origin of such needs. Naturally, the individual cannot surpass the power of nature. 

 

Since alienated needs cannot accomplish satisfaction, they are insatiable as a general rule. Such alienation develops egoistic features of the character and manifests in greed, ambition, infatuation, and fanaticism in the field of the individual’s alienated interest. Alienated needs may objectively be entirely unnecessary to the individual’s nature; however, they create in their alienated consciousness great importance. They then direct the individual to act contrary to their nature.

 

Suppose the individual’s alienated consciousness can find an illusory confirmation for their alienated power. In that case, the individual then develops a higher degree of subjectivism that creates a narcissistic feature of the character. Narcissism significantly represses and underestimates the objective, unknown, unacceptable reality and glorifies the alienated vision of one’s power in nature, which creates a grand illusion of living conveniences. When individuals, by their subjective perception, define their power far more significant than they can objectively have, they come across the contradiction in real life, which brings tensions and inconveniences. Objectively, narcissistic needs are unnecessary to the individual’s nature; however, they become a precondition for ensuring existence in their subjective consciousness. Hence, such an individual invests high energy in the fight for alienated survival.

 

The more the individual is alienated from their nature, the less they can satisfy their needs and thus find relaxation and conveniences. The alienated individual can be recognized by the fact that they are almost permanently under stress; they are more nervous than easy-going; they are more bad-tempered than satisfied, and they are more depressed than happy no matter what their accomplishments are. The individual’s nature cannot endure permanent tension and inconvenience. Therefore, they inadvertently get perverted and find their way out from the anxiety in the perversion of their senses and emotions.

 

The alienated individual rids themselves of the inconvenient tension and finds illusory relaxation and conveniences in the perversion of their nature. While the natural individual finds peace and conveniences in love, in a constructive attitude toward nature, the alienated individual finds illusory conveniences and relaxation in hatred and destructive attitudes toward nature. To such an individual, destruction becomes a need. The destructive tension that then appears may make the individual entirely unable to perceive the objective causes of their inconveniences.

 

Suppose the subjectivity of alienated individuals overestimates the conditions of nature, which bring inconveniences to them. In that case, they then find the causes of impotence in themselves; they then orient destructively towards themselves. Depending on the degree of powerlessness, self-destructiveness acquires features that range from passivity before natural forces, even where the individual has the power to overcome them, to the need for self-destruction. The individual does not aspire to self-destruct because of objective impotence such as poverty or famine, but only if they lose the alienated form of power in nature. The individual accepts self-destructiveness as a need to escape from reality. It can develop from, for example, the need to consume alcohol up to the entirely alienated consciousness or lunacy. Such an individual can only, in that way, find relaxation from the inconvenient tension.

 

Suppose an alienated individual underestimates the power of nature with their subjective vision. In that case, they find a way out from the inconveniences and an illusory relaxation from the tension, in a destructive attitude toward nature. An individual is never as destructive as they are when their narcissistic character, false human greatness, gets hurt. Depending on the degree of impotence and the lack of respect toward nature, destructiveness manifests in the form of aggression that may develop toward the act of destroying nature.

 

Individual who lives in harmony with their nature overcomes impotence within the limits of their capabilities. Such an individual accomplishes natural conveniences. When individuals alienate their nature, they cannot satisfy their needs. Therefore, tensions emerge that push them to destruction. The alienated individual lives a biologically inconvenient life.

 

This whole book is about alienation, but what would that be in one sentence? Alienation is a state where an individual does not recognize values where they are. Instead, they imagine values that don’t exist. Individuals think as they feel, feel as they live, and live as they think. Since the individual manages their thoughts through knowledge, since thoughts determine needs and thus direct the action, the individual bears responsibility for realizing their own sensory and emotional states. One can say that the individual is what they think or, more precisely, that they are what they know.

 

 

 

The Society

 

 

1.1           Society

 

The natural laws of society

 

The individual is a free biological being and a social being by their nature. “The individual who knows” is aware that they will satisfy their natural needs to a greater extent by associating with another individual. “A society that knows” achieves that. Such a society accomplishes a higher power in nature and, accordingly, a greater possibility of satisfying their natural needs. The joining of people represents a community of individuals with specific and collective needs. These needs determine social relationships.

 

Social relationships do not occur accidentally; they depend on social conditions. When the same social conditions permanently create identical results, they may be called the natural laws of society. This study seeks to prove that the natural laws of society will establish a good community. Now, the question arises if some rules can establish a good society, why has it been so absent from the history of humankind? The answer is straightforward: Society has never defined the natural laws of society. This study presents the natural laws of society and argues that they will build an incomparably better community than has ever existed

 

The natural laws of society should determine social behaviour, like how the laws of physics determine powers in nature. Understanding the laws of physics lets people live in harmony with the physical world. Likewise, understanding the natural laws of society will let people live in harmony that is impossible to obstruct. This paper elaborates on this.

 

Considering that society’s natural laws were never defined, this study used the book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” written by Isaac Newton[1] in 1687 as a reference model for determining natural social laws. Accepting society’s natural laws is intended to contribute to the progress of humanity in the same way Isaac Newton contributed to the development of physics.

 

1st natural law of society:     Destructive people are dissatisfied and form destructive social relations. Satisfied people are not destructive and create constructive social relations.

 

2nd natural law of society:  Strong people tend to dominate over the weak, forming a repressive society. People of equal power respect and do not try to dominate each other, thus creating harmonious social relations.

 

3rd natural law of society:     Social privileges create unequal power among people, causing social problems, while equal human rights give the same social power to people, preventing social problems. Equal human rights create constructive and harmonious social relations, making people satisfied with their lives.

 

The first and second natural laws of society are self-explanatory. They might have some exceptions due to the perversion existing in the alienated world. But once a community recognizes the natural laws of society, they should remove perversion in society and establish constructive and harmonious social relations without exceptions. 

 

The first and second natural laws contribute to understanding the third natural law of society, which is the most important in this study. The third law is not an obvious solution for creating productive social relations of satisfied people because equal human rights have never existed.

 

A “society that knows” will form equal human rights. The definition of equal human rights should mean that all people have equal opportunities in life. What is allowed to some must be allowed to everybody else, and vice versa; what is forbidden to some must be forbidden to all. This study will try to provide evidence that the establishment of equal human rights is the only condition for creating a good society. Without equal human rights, a good society cannot be formed.

 

The individual is a natural need for another individual and the value. In a “society that knows,” everyone respects all members of society irrespective of the differences in their degree of ability or power. In such a society, everyone is entitled to participate in the decision-making processes about the rules for joint activities. In this way, the sum of all individual needs forms the optimal collective needs of society, which determine the laws of the social
relationship.

 

Equal human rights demand obligations of individuals as well. The rights determine people’s freedoms, while responsibilities diminish them as the people are forced to behave toward nature and society in a way that suits the community as a whole. “The society that knows” establishes the social relationship rules to reduce personal inconveniences and increase the collective conveniences to all. Such rules suit all members of society to the most significant extent possible.

 

Society has the same reactions to the relationship with nature as individuals. “The society that knows” forms natural needs within the limits of their natural power of realization and thus satisfies their needs and accomplishes the conveniences. 

 

One can say that the individual takes the roads of development of society during their lifetime. A child has neither knowledge nor the ability to meet their natural needs. The parents who know how to live following their nature are satisfied and develop a love for the child. They take over ongoing care for meeting the child’s natural needs. Such an attitude brings warmth and joy, which is a prerequisite for the prosperity of both the child and society. Such people who have not been deprived in their youth later become sound protagonists in society.   

 

“The individual who knows” brings benefits to themselves and society. Therefore, “the society that knows” is interested in having each member be familiar with the amount of knowledge they possess. “The society that knows” forms an impartial understanding of the laws of movements in nature and educates the young members on the rights, duties, and responsibilities for their wellbeing in society and nature. The young who see active and satisfied adult members of “the society that knows” form a belief in a convenient future and, therefore, accepts with pleasure the rights, duties and responsibilities of the community. “The society that knows” forms the education that follows the interest of the students and society. In this way, the act of education satisfies the needs and desires of the students and produces benefits for society.

 

The society meets its needs through work. “The society that knows” establishes its needs by mutual agreements, and then by the associated work meets the needs and in such a way accomplishes benefits. In “the society that knows,” each worker has an equal right to work in every work post, and the most productive interested worker gets the job. In this way, society reaches the most significant productivity and the highest values in production, while freedom in choosing jobs enables work to become a value for itself. 

 

“The society that knows” distributes work and labour results among workers to form balanced conveniences. Such an approach builds an equal interest of workers to perform every work. Such a social attitude toward work allows the coverage of all work posts with the workers who perform their jobs following their natural needs and abilities. 

 

Autonomous worker bears responsibility for their work by their work accomplishments. In associated labour, an irresponsible worker may inflict great inconveniences to the working collective because of the relation existing among the work processes. Therefore “the society that knows” forms the efficient principles of accountability for the workers who fail to perform the work obligations and for behaviour not suitable to society. Therefore, each member of such a society behaves responsibly toward nature, community, work, and work results. Being aware of their responsibility, they form the work needs following their nature and possibility of realization. Such an orientation is a precondition for satisfying needs and for the basis of a constructive orientation of society. 

 

In “the society that knows,” the products of collective work are distributed according to the contribution of everyone in the process of production. The work that produces a higher value brings greater conveniences to society and thus deserves a higher reward in the share of collective work products. The distribution of work results among the workers is also performed according to the degree of inconveniences that occur during the work. A more inconvenient work duty requires a higher compensation, and therefore it receives a higher share in the distribution of the conveniences coming from the result of work. In the distribution of produced goods, the contribution of workers’ ancestors should be counted because each result of work contains a vast quantity of past labour. 

 

“The society that knows” forms solidary distribution elements, which guarantee the existence of the entire population, regardless of whether they participate directly in the production. In this way, society develops an orientation that an individual is a value to an individual. Solidarity provides products intended for individual consumption to everyone who needs it. It establishes social stability and helps the development of new forces in society that reproduce such orientation.

 

A society that continually satisfies its needs is a satisfied, mighty, and noble society. A community with generous members necessarily helps each other and develops unity, bringing prosperity. It believes in its force and is confident in being able to reach conveniences. The consequence of such belief results in love appearing among the members of society, social equilibrium and harmony with nature. 

 

In such a society, each member helps the development of every individual, as in this way, they also contribute to their development. Giving is a source of manifestation of the power of being that brings great benefits. “The society that knows” ensures the reproduction of constructive orientation and can plan its development and prosperity. Such a society is a good society.

 

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

 

The Individual

 

1.1           Individual

 

The nature of individual

 

A human being is a part of nature. Nature contains an infinite quantity of matter charged with energy which creates an endless multitude of forces, actions and reactions, tensions and equilibriums. The nature of an individual is a living part of nature; they possess the sensory ability, thoughtfulness, and the ability to act consciously. By moving, nature creates sensorial advantages and disadvantages for the individual. The sensory difference between the advantages and disadvantages forms the individual’s needs.

 

The individual defines their needs through thoughts. Through thinking, the individual creates and accumulates the consciousness of the advantages and disadvantages of their relationships with nature. In different conditions, thoughts form different emotional states. When the state of nature does not suit an individual, it creates a sensory and emotional tension that concentrates energy towards finding an appropriate condition. 

 

Individual mostly meets their needs by conscious action. The intensity of their efforts depends directly on the degree of the disadvantages. Minor disadvantages induce small action energy, while significant obstacles that also bring into question their survival accumulate the entire individual’s strength in their struggle for survival. The process of activity lasts until the individual satisfies their needs.

 

Satisfaction of the needs brings advantages proportionate to the intensity of surpassed disadvantages. Advantages appear in the form of relaxation from the inconvenient tension and sensory and emotional fulfillment. This process results in saturation. The relation of the needs and saturation change periodically, with the intervals dependent on the nature of the needs. The period of saturation relieves the individual of their needs. 

 

The individual depends on nature; therefore, they are not entirely free. In its broadest sense, freedom represents a state of complete independence and does not allow the existence of needs, either. The individual with vital needs does not need freedom in the broadest sense. In a narrow sense, freedom should be a state that allows the satisfaction of needs because individuals who cannot meet their needs are not free. Such freedom is a condition for accomplishing the individual’s subsistence and developing their abilities, powers, and cognition. Therefore, the individual can and needs to have such freedom.  

 

Nature has unlimited power compared to the individual; however, thanks to their biological development, the individual adapts to the movements of nature and develops their abilities so that in normal, natural conditions, they can meet their genuine needs. As a result, the individual can be free. Their freedom is based on their ability to do what they want; however, such freedom depends on their cognition that they want what they can do. 

 

During their lifetime, the individual acquires many favourable and unfavourable sensory and emotional states arising from relations with nature. By controlling and arranging their reflective determinations regarding the sensory and emotional aspects of the life practice, they create knowledge. With knowledge, individuals develop notions of the conditions that bring them advantages and disadvantages. Knowledge formation is the individual’s most remarkable ability. Knowledge implies forming objective definitions of the laws of movements in nature, the definitions that under identical conditions form equal reactions irrespective of the degree of advantage or disadvantage that such definitions create for people. Objective definitions present the laws of the movements in nature as they are.  

 

Knowledge gives power to the individual to meet their needs through conscious and organized work. The individual opposes the disadvantages in nature with conscious work. With their work, individuals produce the means needed for their survival and create more significant advantages. The working ability gives the individual a high power in nature. 

 

Anything that creates benefits has its value. The individual accepts the value in cases where differences may exist between advantages and disadvantages, where needs are not satisfied or may not be satisfied. The value is proportional to needs. 

 

The work output has its value in use or natural value. The natural value of the products of labour meets the individual’s natural needs related to survival and living standards. The work brings advantages by itself to some extent so that it has some usable value as well. The individual’s bright future lies in finding a job that brings more benefits in its duration because, in that way, the individual reaches more existential conveniences. As a general rule, such conveniences last longer and may also be more intensive than the conveniences arising from consuming work results. 

 

By using knowledge, the individual defines the rightness of movements in nature, and the more deeply they reveal them, the more broadly they can apply their regularity. Knowledge gives the individual the power that is, in its form, unlimited to nature. The more individuals develop understanding, the higher the needs they can create and meet, and the more control over the conditions forming their sensory and emotional states. “The individual who knows” can discover and build their progressive orientations, live in harmony with their nature, rely on their forces, and believe in their power and themselves. Such an individual can understand their relationship with nature, develop love with nature, develop a constructive relationship with nature, and find pleasure in connection with nature. Such an individual necessarily lives in harmony with nature.

 

The more individual knows, the more they meet their natural needs, the more balanced they are, the more they believe in conveniences, the more optimism they build toward life, and the more relaxed, content, joyful they live. This is the presentation of an individual who lives a naturally productive life and, as such, can be easily recognized. 

 

Wisdom is the highest level of knowledge. It is acquired by the experience gained by healthy, natural living. The wise individual continually satisfies their natural needs and therefore experiences significant satisfaction. They have everything they need, irrespective of the quantity and quality, and consequently, they are satisfied. A satisfied person is a good person. This simple claim is so significant for the development of humanism that it should be accepted as the natural law of human beings.

 

By overcoming the inconveniences, the conveniences also lose importance. In other words, when differences between the possible conveniences and inconveniences get smaller, the needs also get smaller. Therefore, the more the individual knows, the less need they have, which means that by living, they come closer to freedom in its broadest sense. 

 


Definition of Notions

Definition of Terms

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Back to Top

The Humanism

3              Humanism
3.1                  Study of the Process of Disalienation of a Commune
3.1.1                     Bases of the Policy of Humanism
3.1.2                     Bases of the Economy of Humanism
3.1.2.1                         Good Capitalism
3.1.2.2                         Good Socialism
3.1.2.2.1                              Labour Price
3.1.2.2.2                              Labour Division
3.1.2.2.3                              Commodity Price
3.1.2.2.4                              Money
3.1.2.2.5                              Working Capital
3.1.2.2.6                              Development of the Economy
3.1.2.2.7                              Income Distribution
3.1.2.2.8                              Use of Real Estate
3.1.2.2.9                              Collective Consumption
3.2                   Disalienation of Associated Communes
3.2.1                     Pooling of Policies
3.2.2                     Pooling of the Economy
3.2.3                     Association of States
3.3                  Expectation of the New System