The Humanism

Money

3.1.2.2.4 Money

Money is a means of payment for goods and services in a market economy. Money in circulation is issued by the state apparatus through the central bank. The state seeks to equate money in circulation with the total value of goods and services produced to enable a stable economy. The central bank regulates the money supply on the market through monetary policy. The main instrument of the state’s economic policy in capitalism is the credit interest rate formation.

The government uses low-interest rates to create an expansive monetary policy that stimulates investments. As a result, economic development increases workers’ employment, national income, and society’s welfare. However, the increased mass of money in circulation creates inflation, which raises the prices of goods and leads to instability in the market, which is unfavourable for the economy.

The state controls inflation and stabilizes the economy with a restrictive monetary policy that limits the money supply by raising interest rates. Then comes the deflationary tension that suppresses the market, which leads to a recession in production. The recession reduces companies’ profits, increases unemployment, lowers people’s standards, and leads to economic crises.

Market regulation of the amount of money in circulation does not create a sufficiently stable economic policy because it is challenging to balance a huge number of independent factors that prevail in the economy. Thus, cyclical fluctuations in the economy occur, which is unfavourable for the economy and society. The state’s monetary policy is much more adapted to anarchic changes in the market than it is based on organized economic policy.

A stable economic policy requires a balanced distribution of labour, the known purchasing power of the population, the known needs of society, and an efficient economy that meets society’s needs. A fully balanced economic policy can only be pursued through a developed planned economy, and that is why it will have to be accepted in the future. It will necessarily require creating a monetary policy to ensure adequate money in circulation and democratic control of its use.

***

The most suitable situation for any economy would be to have the quantity of money in circulation identical to the value of produced commodities. In an ideal case, the economy produces what society needs, and the money in circulation enables purchasing all manufactured goods. This would create economic stability.

Consumers possess a large amount of money. It is much higher than the value of current production and much lower than the total value of everything the society owns because those values were created by turning over the same money. Part of that money is turned over for the needs of payment transactions of production and distribution, and a large amount of money is accumulated to achieve economic security and investments of people. The big problem is that privately accumulated capital is placed freely, making it difficult for the economy to plan production. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce more order in the economic policy of the commune through the process of production planning.

The commune does not issue money, but it can acquire it by redeeming accumulated money held by the population using past labour points. A larger quantity of past labour points of workers brings higher incomes, so people who own money can find their interest in exchanging money for past labour points. By selling money, the commune’s population loses the possibility of lending money with interest but realizes a rise in income proportionately to the increase in the number of past labour points.

In a socialist society, everyone is materially secured. As a result, the individuals will no longer have to save to ensure their future, so a significant voluntary exchange of money for past labour points may be expected. Each community should establish its public bank. Redeemed money should be pooled into the public bank of the commune. The commune will also pool the entire cash fund of the merged companies of the commune. The money collected from taxes of individuals and private enterprises will be pooled as well.

Thus, the commune will accumulate a large amount of money. The economic policy of socialism will form money intended for the incomes of all the commune inhabitants so that they can buy manufactured goods and pay for the services they use. However, if the amount of money is tied only to the produced value of goods, workers would realize incomes even though the delivered goods are not sold on the market. Such production would create overstock in warehouses and spend accumulated money of the commune, while the commune would not go bankrupt. In this regard, the amount of money for people’s incomes should be formed between the total value produced in the merged public company of the commune and the profit realized on the market in the accounting period. The public bank of the commune should determine the monetary policy to realize the commune’s optimal productivity and economic stability.

Such an amount of money may be called the revenue of the commune. The commune’s revenue is less than the amount of money that the commune possesses. The rest of the funds will be used as working capital and reserve funds for the commune.

Democracy in Economy

In socialism, managers will have the power to make decisions in the name of the people if they dare to do it because they will be directly accountable to people for their decisions. The members of the society will be able to punish a manager who makes decisions that do not serve them. In such conditions, no manager can independently take responsibility for making political decisions that guide the whole society because they cannot know with certainty how much such decisions will suit the members of society.

This primarily relates to the formation of the macro-economic policies of the commune.

For this reason, there is no doubt that the commune’s management will include the commune’s inhabitants in the decision-making process about the commune’s income, fiscal, and development policy. Socialism will introduce a new form of democracy in which commune residents will decide on how much of their income they want to set aside for taxes.

The commune’s management will undoubtedly let the population decide how much of their salaries they want to set for individual and collective spending. The fund on individual expenditures defines the total amount of money for incomes for all commune residents, excluding workers in private enterprises because private enterprises keep their profits and distribute payments themselves. Collective spending defines the amount of money individuals wish to deduct from their salaries for the joined spending of all the commune people.

Individual spending implies workers’ incomes but also includes tax money for workers’ salaries in non-profit companies and unemployed people. The individual salaries of people are determined by the values of past and current work and realized productivity. The social system gives these values, and the voters cannot influence them at this moment. In this voting, people decide on the amount of money they want to intend for their individual and collective spending. Each person will write a statement of their decision in the web application associated with the data processing center of the commune administration.

Since past labour points will determine the size of income, people will share past labour points they possess for individual and collective spending. In this way, each resident will exercise decision-making power in proportion to the possession of past labour points. People with more valuable past work will have more power in decision-making.

The rationale: Considering that all members of society have not equally contributed to the creation of collective wealth, they should not have the same decision-making power regarding the fiscal policy of society. The more productive work should have more decision-making power for better motivation. Economic decision-making power needs to be based on the value of past work determined by the number of past labour points. This will contribute to the development of the economy and society. This measure is equivalent to the power of shareholders’ voting rights in capitalism.

Suppose one wishes to allocate more money for individual spending and a smaller amount for collective spending. They will share the value of their past work points in such a ratio. The commune’s leadership should first define the minimum percentage of tax money so that the commune can meet its basic joined spending needs.

The summarized declarations of all the commune inhabitants for individual and collective spending will determine the total amount of money for individual and collective spending. Thus, society will directly create the income and fiscal policies of the commune.

The total amount of money for individual incomes (workers in private companies excluded) will be distributed to the commune population according to their merits. These merits will be primarily based on the realized productivity and prices of work of workers. This will be addressed in more detail in the chapter: “The Distribution of Income

In the same manner, society may determine the minimum income of individuals, which will regulate the range of incomes among the people. This will regulate the relationship between work merits, solidarity, and income-based work interest. For example, if workers were unwilling to perform undesirable work and thus reduce the productivity of the commune, the people can reduce the minimum income of workers through direct voting. The result would stimulate workers to work more and thus achieve higher productivity and a greater share in the distribution of incomes. On the other hand, if the commune reaches higher productivity than is required, society will increase the minimum income and thus reduce the income stimulation of work.

The system provides a single tax rate because it is simpler to calculate, and in this way, the people can determine it through direct democratic voting. Today’s regulation of progressive taxation, which has the task of establishing social balance, will be replaced with the commune’s income policy, which will later be explained more. Harmful forms of spending for health, such as alcohol and tobacco, might be more effectively reduced through the disalienation of society rather than through tax policy.

The people will further divide the money for collective spending to develop production and collaborative consumption.

Assets intended for the development of the economy provide for the expansion of the productive forces, purchases of new means of production, or complete companies that promote production. A larger quantity of cash assets intended for the development of the economy will engage social work and economic growth to a more significant extent, which would increase the means of production and, accordingly, productivity. More sizeable investments in the development of the economy will ensure major social conveniences in the future; however, cash assets for current spending would decrease, which would also reduce the individual and social standards. Such a system will enable each commune to develop by relying on its forces. The policy of the commune development will be addressed in the chapter: “Development of the Economy.”

Assets for collective spending serve to meet all common needs of society. They are used to maintain the existing structure of the social standard and the building of new social standard facilities. This includes funding commodity spending in public health, education, security, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure, etc. Assets for collective spending may, to a certain degree, be distributed by direct decisions of the population, while interested society members may directly make later partial distributions. However, the authorized management needs to make the final distribution of the smallest spending segments for which it will be directly accountable to society. Increased funding for collective spending would allow a higher common standard at the expense of other forms of spending.

The money for the state spending also needs to be set aside from the funds earmarked by people for the collective expenses. This money is used for the expenditure of the state. The amount of money for federal spending is determined by the Federal Assembly through the delegates or representatives of all communes. Collective spending will be addressed in more detail in the chapter: “Collective Spending.”

***

The new voting system will be based on the unlimited validity of the voters’ votes until each voter themselves changes their vote. Also, the new system will enable people to vote whenever they want. Therefore, they will be able to change their voting statements many times per day if they wish, and the system will not have any problem processing such changes.

The proposed system will significantly allow the commune population to determine the collective economic needs. Based on their own experience, the people will notice the advantages and disadvantages of a particular form of money distribution, adjusting so that all individuals and society realize more significant benefits. In this way, all individuals and society will realize greater conveniences. The community will accept the economic policy as its own, which is one of the essential elements of the disalienation of the economy and society.

Identified collective economic needs define the macro spending and thereby determine the production. In this manner, the commune’s population will directly and democratically create the macro-economic policy of the commune. This will be an introduction to creating a stable, democratically planned economy.

Commodity Price

3.1.2.2.3 Price of Commodities

Commodities have their sales value expressed by price. In a market economy, the law of supply and demand determines the price of items. Manufacturing possibilities, purchasing power, and society’s needs adjust the cost of things. Commodities also have their manufacturing value based on the cost of production.

In socialism, the manufacturing value of commodities should incorporate money intended for the work cost of all workers who produce the commodities (1); the pertaining ratio of the work of workers in the non-profit organizations (2); the pertaining proportion of the unemployed people on the territory of the commune (3); and the working cash assets invested in the production of goods (4).

In socialism, calculating the production value of goods is more accurate and just than in capitalism, so it will bring much more justice to wage distribution than it is possible today. The production value of goods can be presented by the formula:

A = ∑ (B x (1+C+D)) + E

The formula indicates that the production value of the goods includes the cost of workers who directly produce goods, then the corresponding price of work for employees working in nonprofit organizations, the related earnings for unemployed people, and finally, the value of working capital invested. Hereinafter, production value refers to the total goods produced in a company over the accounting period.

A detailed explanation of the formula:

A – The manufacturing value of commodities produced in a company.

B – The total work price of each worker who participates in manufacturing commodities. The price is defined by the number of past labour points and the current labour price of workers.

The quantity of past labour points is determined by the holdings of workers, while workers determine the current labour price by stating it in a freely competitive way. The product of these two coefficients gives the work price of a worker.

C – The coefficient of workers employed in non-profit organizations. It is expressed by the proportion of the work price of all the workers employed in non-profit organizations and those employed in a profit economy on the commune territory.

The proportion of the number of workers employed in the profit economy and the non-profit organizations is regulated by the commune’s management, following the needs and possibilities. The work price of workers in non-profit organizations is established identically to the work prices of workers in the profit economy. The workers in a profit economy produce commodities whose sale generates profit on the commodities market. The workers employed in non-profit organizations, such as teachers and police staff, do not directly realize earnings from customers because their activity is free of charge for the workers in the profit economy and the commune’s inhabitants. This means that the total quantity of produced commodities and services is a fruit of the collective work in both profit economy and non-profit organizations sectors. Workers in the profit economy use the services of non-profit activities; thus, according to the principle of mutuality, the workers in the non-profit activities must use the products of the work performed by the workers in the profit economy. By applying this coefficient, the workers’ contribution to the non-profit organizations is built into the product’s price. The coefficient establishes the share of workers in the distribution of produced commodities.

D – The coefficient of unemployed inhabitants. It is expressed by the proportion of the number of unemployed and employed workers in the profit economy on the commune’s territory in the function of the price of current labour and the quantity of past labour income-based points.

The coefficient represents the entire population that does not work directly: the young, pupils, retired people, homemakers, invalids and, generally, the whole unemployed population in the commune. The unemployed population needs to receive earnings for past and future labour and the economic security of the people. Such payment needs to be incorporated into the price of produced commodities.

The value of the past work of unemployed people determines the number of past labour points they possess. The current labour price of unemployed people determines the commune’s management according to the work needs and the power of the commune’s production. A lower price of current labour for the unemployed will generate smaller earnings, increasing their interest in work. And vice-versa, a higher price of current labour of the unemployed will generate a higher income, which will decrease the income-based work interest. In this way, the commune’s management will direct social work following social and production needs. For example, an increase in the price of current labour of students would stimulate education, etc.

These coefficients represent the income appropriations for all inhabitants in the commune in the cost of commodities. By selling goods on the market, all the commune inhabitants realize their share of the realized profit.

E – The quantity of cash working assets spent to produce the commodities. Operating assets understand the value of the parts of products manufactured by other producers and refer to intermediates, semi-finished products, and raw materials.

Working money assets are mostly set aside from the commune’s reserve fund, which is formed by redeeming cash assets in exchange for past labour points. Operating assets are taken according to the needs of the profit economy. However, the producers have the obligation of their repayment during the accounting period.

In the accounting period, factors C and D are unique and might be calculated by the coefficient k. Then manufacturing price of commodities can be expressed by the formula:

C = ∑ (A x k) + B

The sum of all labour costs of workers involved in manufacturing products burdened with contributions for workers in the non-profit companies and unemployed people gives the total labour cost for producing a particular product. By adding the value of working capital spent, one gets the manufactured value of commodities.

This method of calculating the value of the price of goods equates the total value of all goods produced in the commune with the income of the commune’s inhabitants. In other words, it equates the prices of goods with the purchasing power of society. In this way, the production and distribution system achieves balance.

***

It is crucial to determine the production value of goods because it presents the efficiency of the business performance of enterprises in the commune. If the production value of goods is higher than the market price, the company is unprofitable. And if the production value of goods is lower than the market price, the company operates profitably.

Due to the different work equipment, enterprises’ productivity varies, and by selling their commodities on the free market, they realize various incomes. In a free choice of labour system through labour competition, jobs that generate higher salaries with equal workloads would arouse great interest among workers. On the other hand, lower-income jobs with similar workloads would arouse less interest. This would undoubtedly cause instability in the labour market and thus in society.

The commune’s management needs to solve the issue of balancing the demand for all work posts in the commune’s enterprises by analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of production. For example, the balance may be increased by employing more workers in enterprises, realizing a more significant profit and decreasing the number of workers in companies that realize smaller profits. If it is not economically justified, the balance may be established and more significant profits earned by investing in companies that already produce profit and closing down the loss-making enterprises. If such an option is not justified, the balance lies in investing in the enterprises operating with smaller profits, which would achieve higher productivity and, accordingly, an increase in profit.

However, the difference in productivity and the realized income among enterprises in the commune will exist as long as a difference in the production equipment exists. This is because sizeable automation of the production process will always significantly reduce the necessary number of workers. In this way, the productivity and income of workers in such a company will rise in relation to the producers of the commune having a lower level of automation in their production. Hence, if work competition were the only coordinator between the supply and demand of work, it would always create instabilities in the labour division created by the needs of workers for better-paid jobs.

The proposed payment settlement in which the total income of all workers corresponds to the full value of goods and services produced predicts that the entire surplus income of enterprises with better material equipment in the commune will correspond to the lack of income of companies with lower material equipment in the commune.

A balance between supply and demand for labour in the commune can be achieved in the way that companies that perform the surplus-value, in which workers earn more than they demand, give up their surplus value in favour of companies making less money than workers demand. This is a subvention. The subvention is necessary because, in the system of free labour competition, workers would compete for work in more productive companies, where they would earn more money than they asked. This would bring instabilities in the division of labour. Such a measure has the sole task of equalizing the income interest of workers for all necessary jobs.

In this way, the commune becomes the basic working organization. It will allow all goods in all enterprises of the commune to be placed at market value as this is still the best possible distribution of goods to consumers. At the same time, in socialism, all workers will earn incomes in proportion to the value of work they share in the production process, regardless of the companies’ revenue.

Workers who have more past labour points will earn higher incomes even in companies that make less profit in the market. They will not be an income burden to their companies because the salaries will spill over between companies. Workers who have a considerable number of past work points with which they earn high incomes will not burden their co-workers. By sharing the revenue, everyone will make wages equal to the price of labour they asked for achieved productivity. Highly productive companies will be deprived of the surplus value achieved thanks to better equipment or market advantages, favouring workers who earn less than they demanded for their work.

From the standpoint of capitalistic entrepreneurship, socialism is fully non-stimulating because it does not allow the earning of extra profit by speculations beyond direct work. Instead, socialism will form a new work motivation that will arise directly from the competition for work, from the need to find and confirm individual productive power, which is one of the most critical drivers.

In socialism, speculations are only possible by altering statements of the coefficient of responsibility directly linked with work productivity and the business performance of the work collective. Individual and collective profits will continue to be achieved thanks to the rise in productivity. However, these profits will be smaller as they will not include the privileges resulting from a better status in society, from the better work equipment in production, or random market conveniences, but exclusively from the equal struggle of workers in accomplishing more significant benefits for society.

In other words, if workers can equally increase the productivity of the work collective by using newly developed means of production, they cannot speak of their essential contribution to the production, and they need not be specially rewarded. However, suppose an individual worker increases their productivity more than other workers can in their position. In that case, this will be their contribution to the production process and will have to be accepted and rewarded.

The product of all commodities prices and the number of produced goods give the total value of produced goods. The realization of such production requires an equivalent amount of money in circulation as a means of payment for the goods.

Labour Division

3.1.2.2.2 Work Division

Socialism will introduce significant changes in the system of labour division. The disadvantage of today’s division of labour lies in the insufficient possibility of choosing work. Namely, occupied jobs are not accessible to other candidates and unemployed people. Even under capitalism, such positions are privileged and do not achieve sufficient economic productivity. Therefore, socialism will introduce a constantly open competition for each job and employ the best worker available.

In socialist production, all jobs will be subject to labour competition in the labour market within the operational possibilities that every job has. The worker who offers the highest productivity, responsibility and the lowest price of labour will exercise the right to work in every job position.

The socialist work organization in the commune may freely vary from a centralized production organization to an entirely liberal business operation of enterprises. The commune’s management will establish the work division and the decision-making power in production, resulting in the most significant benefits for the commune. The managers of the commune will organize production to achieve maximum productivity. They will have the authority to form new companies and shut down companies that do not perform sufficient productivity.

Managers must respect the production obligations of companies. If the volume of needs for production decreases, they will reduce the number of workers who perform them until the possible closure of the company. Workers whose employment is terminated due to the redirection of the economy are recognized as having fulfilled their contractual obligations and therefore receive rewards for work as if they had fulfilled their responsibilities and search for new jobs provided by the management.

The management will have great operational power, which is necessary for establishing fast and efficient coordination of work, which is again essential for good economic performance. Some may compare such power to the power of dictators. Still, nothing will be further from that because the managers will directly owe the responsibility to the people and because they can be replaced at any moment.

Under the pressure of labour competition, every worker will strive to achieve maximum productivity within their workplace’s work competencies. Changes in the authority at each workplace are possible only by agreement between the employee and manager, provided that the managers have the right to decide. In the transition period, the work of managers will be controlled by commune assemblies and worker councils, but most likely, people will give up on it when the system shows it is more efficient without them.

Private companies will continue to produce just as they do today.

***

A worker who offers the highest productivity and responsibility and the lowest price of their current labour is the most suitable for the collective staff and society. Therefore, they should get the right to work at such work post. Thus, each work, management included, may be defined in the function of productivity, responsibility, and the work price. To compare the different work functions more efficiently, it is necessary to express the mentioned values for each work post by the following coefficient:

This formula will require the coordination of influences of each variable. After that it will give the value that points to the competitive capability of a worker for a needed work post. Each worker proposes a magnitude of coefficients according to their own capabilities for the job they wish to perform. A worker who offers a higher productivity, a higher labour responsibility, and a lower current work price will win the right to work at the desired work post. Besides that, the realized higher C-of work competition allows each worker to take the work post of another worker with the obligation to assume all labour obligations and responsibilities of that work post.

Labour Productivity

Each work has its measure of productivity. Today, the measure of productivity can be in the most straightforward, most comprehensive, and most efficient manner determined by profit on the market. Cash profit in the free market involves all elements of productive business activity, such as the quantity and quality of work, cost-effectiveness, rationality, usability, serviceability, etc. Profit is the social evaluation of the success of the business performance. However, there are no commodity-money relations within the enterprise, so productivity needs to be expressed by the quantity and quality of the goods and services produced in a determined time interval.

Where it is impossible to precisely establish the labour productivity by the produced goods or where the establishment of productivity would be time-consuming, productivity can be expressed by assessing the production value. Existing productivity defined by grade for each work post has the value of 1 (one). A worker believing that they can increase their productivity by 10% will offer the assessment of their productivity higher by 10% of existing productivity, and the value of their envisaged productivity will then be 1.1. The work assessment may replace all other forms of labour productivity valuation. Each worker can show their C-productivity by the formula:

The envisaged productivity expressed in money, products, or work estimate, and if identical with the existing one, will form the coefficient 1 (one). A coefficient larger than 1 (one) will indicate a work more productive than the existing one. A worker who offers a larger coefficient will exercise their right to the desired work post.

Once the accounting period is over, it is necessary to valorize the realized productivity to establish the worker’s success in the work offer. The realized productivity may be presented by a coefficient with the following formula:

The realized productivity expressed by cash profit on the market may efficiently show the success of the business activity, and other forms of productivity valorization are, therefore, unnecessary. However, the said form of work valorization applies only to self-employed entrepreneurs and management of the associated labour in the economy.

In the direct production of commodities, the volume of realized and envisaged quantity of products and services may establish productivity. However, where the number of products and services cannot precisely express productivity or establishing the amount would be time-consuming, an assessment of indirect work value will be introduced.

The evaluation of workers’ productivity may be given by managing boards, worker’s councils, and workers among themselves. The managing boards and workers councils of enterprises will monitor and grade the operational improvements and declines of workers. Their grades may show the realized productivity of workers. However, the workers know the quality and shortcomings of each other the best, so the best evaluation of workers would give they among themselves. They should get an equal right to anonymously evaluate the work of several others as a response to their proposed productivity.

The grade received will be a confirmation or negation of the envisaged rate that each worker has given to themselves to offer their productivity. The proposed subjective grade of a worker’s productivity will get its confirmation or negation, influencing the production development of objective value categories. Work valorization is necessary not only for establishing the accountability of workers for the realized productivity but also as a determination that defines recognition of the individual’s essential powers. Individuals need an objective scale of values to get to know themselves objectively and the possibility of their improvement.

The coefficient of realized productivity that realizes the value higher than 1 (one) will represent the productivity realized in a volume larger than envisaged and will also get a higher income. And vice-versa, the coefficient of realized productivity smaller than 1 (one) will represent the productivity realized in a volume smaller than envisaged, so that the income will also be smaller.

It should be emphasized that the presented bookkeeping is based on the capitalist form of running the economy, which is quite demanding. Nevertheless, it is presented in such a way that it could explain the new economy to people who think traditionally. The socialist economy will accept the principle of democratic anarchy, which will apply significantly simpler bookkeeping than in capitalism but will not lag behind it

Responsibility of Workers

Without a defined method of bearing responsibility, workers would not be bound to implement their proposed productivity. In this way, their declarations in the work competition would be exaggerated, and work results could not follow them. Such irresponsibility could have catastrophic consequences for the economy. Therefore, it is necessary to set up a system by which every worker will bear responsibility for realizing their envisaged productivity. It needs to be based on the coefficient of realized productivity. The method of responsibility bearing needs to be thorough, multi-layered and efficient.

Each worker needs to bear responsibility for their work. Since their job is non-alienable from the collective’s work, they thus also take responsibility for the productivity of the collective. The level of responsibility assumed by a worker may be set by the coefficient of responsibility.

Let it be assumed that the average coefficient of responsibility gets the value of 1 (one). Let it be assumed that the interval between the minimal and maximal responsibility is 0.1 to 10. The responsibility set by the value equal to 0.1 would be the minimum, and that set by the number 10 would be the maximum responsibility. Let each worker set the level of commitment that they may assume for their work and the collective work expressed by the coefficient. A higher coefficient of responsibility needs to render higher work competitiveness in the work market for performing work at every public work post and vice-versa.

Workers will primarily bear responsibility in the production process using their past work points. The total quantity of past labour points of all workers in the commune needs to be equal to the realized revenue of the commune. Economic enterprises that realize a rise in productivity will realize a surplus of cash assets. They will distribute that surplus to workers in the form of past labour points proportionately to their coefficient of responsibility. Conversely, if enterprises lose money, it will be deducted from the past labour points of all workers proportionately to the coefficient of their responsibility.

Enterprises in non-profit sectors, such as administration, possibly health care, education and other activities proclaimed by the commune through its leaders and the assembly, do not realize direct income in the market. Instead, they realize it by the appropriations from the commune’s revenue. In non-profit companies, the measure of the production value needs to be based on the satisfaction of service users. Therefore, a higher grade from the service users will be equivalent to a higher profit for economic enterprises. In this way, non-profit companies will have a productivity measure and responsibility for their production activity.

The system needs to fully equalize the measure of success in the business activity of profit and non-profit companies. By applying mathematical coefficients, it is possible to compare the revenue of the profit economy and the realized productivity of the non-profit organizations expressed in any magnitude, including the productivity assessment.

Unemployed inhabitants will also have some C-responsibility set by leaders and adopted by the assembly of the commune. They can, on this basis, receive or lose past labour points but in a smaller quantity than workers in production. In this way, the entire population of the commune will bear responsibility for the commune’s productivity.

Since the production or, more precisely, the profit in the market may show oscillations in the periods of accounting, collective responsibility by way of past labour points needs to be linked with the period when the business activity of an enterprise shows objective indicators of success. Of course, the accounting period may be different for different productions; however, it may be considered that productivity that shows smaller or larger oscillations in the monthly period will give a realistic balance of productivity in one year.

Once the quantity of past labour points that each enterprise realizes or loses is known, then distribution or deduction of these points will be carried out proportionately to the coefficients of responsibility of workers. By applying computer technology in the period of accounting, the distribution of past labour points, as well as their deduction, can be calculated for an unlimited number of workers by the formula:

Worker-1 : Worker-2 : Worker-3 : …. : Worker-n =

C-respons.-1 : C-respons.-2 : C-respons.-3 : …. : C-respons.-n

Then computer technology can quickly and easily produce the results in the form of:

Worker-1 = +/- Quantity of Points-1,

Worker-2 = +/- Quantity of Points-2,

Worker-3 = +/- Quantity of Points-3,

……

Worker-n = +/- Quantity of Points-n

The obtained values are different magnitudes expressed in past labour points added to (or deducted from) the quantities of past labour points held by workers.

An example: A worker who stated a coefficient of responsibility of 1.5 in the case of a rise in profit of the enterprise would realize, on account of the responsibility function, a three times larger gain of past labour points than a worker who stated a coefficient of responsibility of 0.5. And vice versa, they would gain a three times larger loss of the past labour points in the case of money losses by the enterprise.

In the proposed system, each worker bears responsibility for the collective work proportionately to the stated size of the coefficient of responsibility. In this way, workers become active creators of their conveniences and inconveniences and are no longer passive collective members. Furthermore, such commitment will require that workers become familiar with the consequences of company businesses, which will largely contribute to overcoming alienation in production.

In the capitalistic form of production, a more significant profit is, as a general rule, related to a higher risk of investing money. The new system introduces C-responsibilities with which the workers can, according to their own will, speculate the risk assumed for the success of the collective production. However, such speculation is non-alienable from the direct work of the workers, which will contribute to better knowledge about the economic process, which will again contribute to the rise of the workers’ responsibility for the output. A higher commitment requires a higher degree of confidence in the community, which will result in larger productivity and prosperity of society. A higher degree of responsibility will be formed by workers who are more familiar with business flows and have more confidence in themselves and the collective.

***

Besides the collective responsibility of workers, workers’ personal responsibility in the production processes needs to be defined. Workers individually might produce benefits and disadvantages in the joint process of production. To create a productive orientation of society that will motivate productive work and prevent irresponsibility in the production processes, it will be necessary to determine principles of rewarding and sanctioning the workers by a certain number of past labour points. Such remunerating and sanctioning of workers should be carried out by the arbitration commissions of the company following the company regulations.

However, the best way to determine individual responsibility will likely be through mutual evaluation of workers through democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy would reward good and punish bad workers in the value of the coefficient of responsibility that workers proposed for their work. Let each positive assessment bring the employee points of past work in the value of their coefficient of responsibility. Conversely, let each negative assessment deprive the employee of the points of past work in the function of their coefficient of responsibility.

Such a system of evaluating the value of work and submitting responsibilities represents all the influences that work brings in the broadest sense. It may reward any benefit and sanction any inconvenience that a worker does to another worker or production. Every worker will be careful not to cause inconvenience or cause as minor inconvenience as possible to any other worker and the production processes. This will be the essence of a productive social orientation that will improve interpersonal relationships and production.

For example: let us arbitrarily assume that the commune’s average income is 100,000 monetary units. In that case, the average quantity of past labour points is 100,000. If workers cannot assume a great responsibility for their work, they will opt for a small coefficient of responsibility. For example, if they propose their coefficient of responsibility at 0,1, one positive evaluation would bring them 0,1 point, and five negative votes -0,5 points. Then in the first case, the worker with the average quantity of past labour points will have 100,000.1, and in the second case, 99,999.5 points.

A worker wishing to increase their work competitiveness may also increase their coefficient of responsibility. For example, the coefficient of responsibility of 1,2 will bring 12 points to the worker who gets ten positive evaluations. If the same worker has 100,000 past labour income points, they will have 100.012 points after the assessment. If they get 20 negative votes, 24 points will be deducted, and they will thus, after that, have 99.976 income points. The evaluations will be given monthly so that the mutual evaluation system will require highly responsible work. It should be repeated that the examples are entirely arbitrary and that implementation of such measures in practice will require a broad study and social acceptability.

Once democratic anarchy is accepted in society, workers will no longer have to offer productivity. It will be assumed that their work productivity should meet the needs of consumers and the collectives of joint production. The price of labour will be standardized in the same way that the costs of goods on the market today are standardized. In practice, the greatest responsibility that every worker offers for any job will be the main, if not the only, indicator of workers’ productive power. The example above shows that the fine-tuning of workers’ responsibilities will be determined quickly and efficiently through democratic anarchy.

By accepting democratic anarchy, productivity offered by the politicians and managers loses its meaning. For example, suppose people think that their work is not satisfactory. Then, they will get negative evaluations regardless of what productivity they offered and achieved, or if they won the elections.

***

There is no doubt that in socialism, each worker will be cautious before declaring their productivity and degree of responsibility. Such cautiousness will prevent hasty statements and voluntarism, which are dangerous to production processes. The system will allow each worker to know their capacity and act according to their ability, thus meeting their needs. Such an act is a precondition for a constructive orientation of society.

The unemployed population should also bear responsibility for their activities, but the commune’s leadership will set their responsibility coefficient considering they do not work. Therefore, they will probably bear the lowest responsibility in the production processes. However, their social responsibility will be sufficient to behave with respect towards society and its environment. This means that the unemployed people may also be rewarded and punished by community members for their behaviour in the community. They will be getting and losing the points of past work in the value of the minimum coefficient of responsibility in the commune. In this way, the entire population of the commune gets the right to evaluate other people’s behaviour and be evaluated by others for their behaviour. It will significantly contribute to the betterment of society

The total amount of past work points of all commune residents should be equal to the realized revenue of the commune. After all the additions and subtractions of past labour points related to the individual responsibility of all commune residents, it is necessary to settle the total amount of past labour points of all people with the revenue of the commune. The final settlement can be made in proportion to the coefficient of responsibility of the people in the same way as rewards and penalties are calculated in companies.

Current Labour Price

Finally, the price of current labour forms the competitive power in selecting the work. The current labour price depends on all the conveniences and inconveniences that work brings in realizing the required productivity concerning the conveniences and inconveniences of other forms of work or from the state outside of work.

The system envisages workers set the current labour price by themselves by a coefficient within a value range from 0.1 to 10. The average price of present labour will have a value of 1(one); a work twice as inconvenient will have a price equal to a value of 2, while the job twice as convenient will have a price of 0.5.

A worker who seeks a lower current labour price on the labour market for equal productivity will realize greater work competitiveness. The system of labour competition will form a threshold value of the current labour price for each job, which will be accepted as an objective by society. Such a current labour price will be one of the foundations for creating a just income distribution. Such a price of labour will be one of the foundations of building a just society.

***

Capitalism will face a robust political demand to reduce the work hours of workers until full employment is provided. It will employ all people who want to work, which means that capitalism’s unfavourable form of unemployment will no longer exist. Reducing working hours will increase the demand for workers. Increased worker demand will increase workers’ wages and reduce employers’ profits. Workers’ rights will grow while employers will lose their privileges. This will make capital decrease its significance. The owners of low-profit companies facing higher labour costs might be interested in selling their companies to the commune.

Owners of private companies that make high profits will not be interested in selling their property to the commune. Such companies will continue their production as they do today. Socialism can begin to be realized even if no private entrepreneur unites their property in the commune. Then the socialist system will be based on organizations and institutions owned by the commune. Socialism will then show significant progress in production.

Socialism will introduce workers’ competition for every public job. No economy can be more productive than one in which every job gets the best available worker. Private companies will not be able to allocate workers efficiently enough to compete with public companies so that public companies will become more productive and profitable than private ones. Above all, private companies will not be able to accept workers’ participation in the distribution of profits as workers in public companies will be able to. As a result, workers will be less interested in working in private companies. Consequently, working in private companies will not be as attractive to workers as working in public companies.

The lower productivity of private companies and the lower interest of workers to work in them represent the end of capitalism. At the beginning of implementing the socialist form of production in public companies, private companies will show interest in joining the public companies of the commune. In return for their property, the owners of private companies will receive the equivalent in points of past work that will bring them a proportionately higher income in public companies. In addition, the owners of private companies will realize that socialism is more stable to oscillations in the economy, ensuring greater stability of the values they possess. If the owners of private companies could join socialism today, they would most likely do so because they would preserve the value of their capital more in the frequent problems of capitalism.

The commune should also allow residents to sell their past labour points for money. Thus, the points of past work could become a form of humanistic actions in which the commune population will have confidence. In socialism, private entrepreneurs may be interested in selling their property to the commune. Over time, the commune can purchase stock shares, real estate and other valuables owned by the commune’s inhabitants. When the owners of private property leave their property to society, their amount of past labour points will replace the values of the capitalist system and supplement them with new values that will enable the further prosperity of society.

***

People have constantly been pressured by authoritarian forces that brought them a sense of inferiority. The reaction to that creates a need for superiority over other people. This is wrong, but since such behaviour exists, it must be accepted as a reality that will prevail in socialism. People need to show their power through competitions. Being a winner is of great value to people because it proves their power. Victory compensates for the subjective experience of powerlessness.

Labour competition is a constant struggle to achieve greater productivity. It is a struggle that allows every worker to be the best in their field. It will be a form of compensation for powerlessness caused by authoritarian influences. People will present their competitive power in their workplaces. That power will be recognized by society and will surely satisfy the workers. Therefore, there is no doubt that work competition is more acceptable than all other forms of competition because it brings socially beneficial results and contributes to the well-being of society.

In socialism, work will no longer be privileged. Revoked privileges will eliminate the power of people over people, that is, the mechanism of exploitation of people, which is the basis of problems in society. Under socialism, all workers will be equal in labour and wage distribution. Everyone will be able to choose a job they like to do and be satisfied with the income earned.

Labour competition will not allow anyone to sleep on their laurels. Over time, one can expect tiredness and satiation from over-intensive action on a broad social level so that ambitions will subside. Such an orientation will form a balance between man’s natural needs and possibilities. Freedom in socialism will enable workers to follow work processes with interest, develop a critical attitude and act on their strengths. This path will allow workers to examine the validity of the premises that guided them to form their needs. This will contribute to the formation of objective values in production.

In this way, people will get closer to their nature and find values that stem from their nature. Socialism will contribute to removing the subjective vision of reality imposed by the authorities throughout humanity’s history, which is the basis of alienation and problems in society. It is a process of disalienation. This will bring values that allow people to find their balance and satisfaction.

In socialism, people will accept their helplessness where they cannot overcome it and find fields where they can objectively exercise their power and thus satisfy their needs. People who manage to meet their needs constantly are not destructive. Such people would have no depression, neurosis, or psychosis and are not alcoholics, drug addicts, masochists, sadists, or aggressive. The process of disalienation will make people live responsible life. Socialism will enable the productive and constructive orientation of people, and then they will believe in prosperity based on productivity, solidarity, and reciprocity. Then one can believe in peace, love, and the joy of living.

Then, society will form a constructive attitude towards young people. This relationship will no longer be authoritative because no person in the community will be subordinated to authoritarian forces. It can be assumed that such a society will form a natural way of life with natural needs. The population will give up alienated ambitions to create healthy relationships in society. Relationships will be formed in which adults will respect young people and where mutual contradictions will be resolved by agreement. Relationships will be formed to enable a person to develop appropriately from an early age. And only then can society find its long-term constructive orientation.

Labour Price

3.1.2.2.1 Price of Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

Past Labour Value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Labour Price

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humanistic Economy

3.1.2

Bases of the Economy of Humanism

3.1.2.1 Good Capitalism

3.1.2.2 Good Socialism

Humanistic Policy

3.1.1 Basis of Policies of Humanism

Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient direct democracy will be needed again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

System Expectations

3.3 Expectations of the New System

Communism should be considered the best social system

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conclusion of the book

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

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

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

Commune Disalienation

3.1 Disalienation of the Commune

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

Good Capitalism

3.1.2.1 Good Capitalism

Full employment is the turning point of capitalism

Humanistic reform of the economy must start with the elimination of unemployment. Workers’ unemployment cannot form a sound basis for creating a good society. A good community can only develop on equal human rights. A just society requires the availability of work to everyone.

Unemployment creates the exploitation of workers. When a work position opens on the market with a high unemployment rate, a large number of candidates apply. The competition of workers may tear down their incomes to a level sufficient only for basic survival in order to get the job. Unemployed workers have to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. Unemployment has widened the gap between rich and poor, creating injustice and problems in capitalism.

Employers favour unemployment because they profit from the exploitation of workers. Employers can maintain unemployment because they do not necessarily need to hire employees most of the time. Large employers support political parties that maintain unemployment through economic policy. It starts with importing cheap labour and ends with rising interest rates. This is how unemployment becomes state policy and how state policy maintains the exploitation of workers. To secure their privileges, the rich have imposed the belief that unemployment is an unavoidable price to pay for technological development. They have pressured economic science to accept that “0% of unemployment is not a positive thing,”[1] which they accomplished.

The capitalists have found an unemployment rate of about 5% the most convenient, so 5% unemployment has become a “normal” state in capitalism. This “normal” state exploits workers by dependence on capitalists, while workers’ total purchasing power produces enough profits for employers. The market economy should appreciate workers more, but capitalism resists it. Due to long struggles, workers have gotten some rights through laws and trade unions. Still, the existence of poverty confirms that the interests of workers are not protected enough.

Society may introduce justice in production processes through a fully employed environment that balances the number of jobs with workers. Reducing work hours will make full employment a reality. Such a measure will require the prevention of work imports and regulation of overtime work. It will increase workers’ demand on the market and put them in a better position in production processes. Full employment will increase workers’ wages and reduce exploitation. However, no formula can determine what exactly exploitation is. Only workers dissatisfied with their earnings may present it. Workers will be satisfied in a fair work market where their work is equally demanded as the jobs they need. The more balanced the work market is, the more satisfied workers are, and the less they are exploited.

Society may increase workers’ satisfaction by further reducing work hours, which will create negative unemployment. Negative unemployment is a shortage of workers on the market. It will further increase workers’ demand and incomes. Negative unemployment may put workers in the privileged position that employers have practically always been in. When workers are not available on the market, employers who need more workers will have to attract workers from other companies by raising their salaries. Competition among employers will start a chain reaction in which workers’ wages will grow, bringing more justice to the production processes.

The rise of workers’ salaries in the negative unemployment environment was proven in the 14th Century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population. Suddenly, the crops in the fields perished because there were not enough workers to harvest them. The Chronicle of the Black Death, a firsthand account finished in 1350, states: “the shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance… there were far fewer people to work the land: peasants were able to demand better conditions and higher wages from their landlords.” Suddenly workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. The shortage of workers increased the workers’ wages. The servants’ higher salaries contributed to economic growth, but the employers were not happy with it.

At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment three times greater in 1350 than in the previous year.[2]

“In Parliament, in 1351, the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that ‘servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons.’”[3]

According to this historical example, if a political party offers a reduction of work to 5 hours per day and wins an election, the lack of workers would increase the lowest workers’ salaries two to three times per hour in one year. The minimum daily wages of workers would increase 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. The fair work market is the best choice for bringing justice to the economy.

The first problem with eliminating unemployment is that employers do not want to increase workers’ salaries because they profit from exploiting them. But on the other hand, excessive wage demands of workers may make the economy unsustainable. This would reduce employers’ interest in production and slow down the economy.

Negative unemployment will make employers unsatisfied. Very unsatisfied employers may avoid paying higher workers’ wages in a fully employed society by moving their businesses out of the country. People need to understand that Western capitalism has established laws that give more freedom to capital than workers, which needs to change. At the very least, the laws need to provide the same rights to workers as to capital.

Any capital departure results in business closure and newly unemployed workers, bringing trouble to a domestic economy. Full employment would again require a reduction of work hours. The shortening of working hours would reduce workers’ incomes in the short run. Workers would not like it. On the other hand, it is not easy for employers to organize a new production by finding new employees and new markets. The escape lies in finding the length of work hours that optimally satisfies the needs of workers and employers.

Today people have accepted the 8-hour workday suggested by Robert Owen at the beginning of the 19th Century. There is no particular reason for an eight-hour workday. Society just took it and adapted to it. Besides providing full employment, the workday length should be a function variable that coordinates workers’ and employers’ needs and justice in the economy. This function should be primarily based on the full employment of people. If more workers search for jobs than employers search for workers, the work hours should be shortened. And vice versa, if employers need more workers than are available, the economic policy should consider extended work hours. The second essential principle of work regulation should be based on the work hours people desire the most.

The length of a workday can be a potent regulator of the free-market economy and the basic point of democracy in the economy. Political parties may propose the best full-time work period for workers and employers. It would probably be one of the most critical decisions of political parties, making them elected or not. On the other hand, the work hours can also be directly determined by the work needs of workers. Every worker may express the most desired work hours, and the average value would decide. Democratically determined work hours are supposed to create a fair work market, which will present a turning point for capitalism, making it a decent social system.

Minimum wages would no longer be needed. Full employment will increase salaries for all lower-paid workers at the expense of higher-paid workers and employers’ profits, balancing an enormous gap between peoples’ wages in the western world. Besides, workers being able to purchase more will contribute to the economy’s growth, earning employers more profit and workers higher salaries, bringing benefits to all.

***

Shortening working hours proportionally to the unemployment rate will improve capitalism, but this study from the beginning intended to achieve a lot more. A better future requires a reconstruction of the economy as a whole. The introductory statement showed that the planned economy is more stable than the market economy, which is significantly more productive. A new economy will have to take advantage of both systems and eliminate their deficiencies.

[1]Mike Moffatt, Why 0% Unemployment Isn’t Actually a Good Thing (ThoughtCo, 2020) www.thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-means-1147540 www.thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-means-1147540

[2] David Routt, The Economic Impact of the Black Death, (Economic History Association EH.Net Encyclopedia, 2008) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/

[3] Michael Bennett, The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History (South Wales: Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995) Vol. 11, p 197 http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlLawSoc/1995/1.pdf

www.sarovic.com	Humanism
www.sarovic.net	Humanism Updated
www.sarovic.org	My blog