Category: Process of Alienation

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.