Humanism Shortly

1 Humanism in five words gives what humanism is in five words.

2 Humanism in a sentence gives an idea of the book in one sentence.

3 Humanism in Essence gives an essence of the book in 350 words.

4 Humanism in Hints gives a basic idea of the book in 650 words.

5 Humanism for Dummies gives an inspiration for the book in 2300 words.

6 Humanism in Brief gives a more theoretical view of the book in 2800 words.

7 Humanism Clearly gives a practical view of the book in 3100 words.

8 Humanism is joy of living or how the system gives joy of life in 2900 words.

9 Humanism Extensively gives an extensive view of the book in 5600 words.

In capitalism, the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist form of production has created the most efficient allocation of economic resources ever, based on the competition of private entrepreneurs. Thus, it has achieved the highest productivity of the economy in the history of mankind, which has established the highest growth of living standards for people. However, the competition of private entrepreneurs has considerable disadvantages. The better producer wins and pushes the losers out of the market. Winners take all, and the losers get nothing. That is why capitalism is brutal. Its side products are fear, greed, and struggle for survival on the market. This struggle is objectively very irrational because the current production is strong enough to efficiently meet the needs of people.

Economic crises are an integral part of capitalism. Crises arise as a result of an insufficient balance between supply and demand. Capitalism doesn’t have a solution that can prevent crises because the entire production is based on the free competition of manufacturers in an unpredictable market. Also, capitalism cannot survive without continuous economic growth. It is forced to continually seek new forms of consumption in which the companies would realize profits as a condition of their survival. Through the development of technology, the cycles of production expansion and recession accelerate faster so that economic instability and the crisis of capitalism occur more often. I think that the frequency of crises will soon force people to seek a better solution than capitalism. Finally, I would like to say that capitalism massively exploits the natural resources of our planet. Limited resources are the final limitation of economic growth and an invincible obstacle to the survival of capitalism.

Capitalism is very demanding in depriving the freedom of people. In today’s society, virtually only capital is free. People have developed consumer freedom on which capitalism bases its survival. Therefore, excessive consumption is established in the western world, which is mainly its own purpose. The people buy useless, cheap goods, which then very quickly become trash, which even then brings new expenses because it has to be transported to waste. Regardless, the citizens of the developed world consider consumption as a maximal value. This is the alienation that capitalism has deliberately imposed over people by using enormous propaganda. Today, many companies dedicate more work hours in finding consumers than in the production of goods. This is an irrationality of capitalism which suggests that capitalism cannot develop anymore and therefore it prevents the development of civilization. In the developed world, consumption has reached its limit when it cannot objectively bring consumers a better life, the same way as a satiated man cannot enjoy eating more food. But due to enormous alienation, consumers aren’t aware of it.

Democratic regulation may improve capitalism but not enough

Capitalists systematically exploit workers by taking a part of the income that should belong to workers. Although there is no objective method for determining the level of exploitation, one may say that the difference between the cost of work freely formed in the labour market where every worker has a job, and the one where workers must take jobs to earn money for living, is exploitation. Unemployed workers forcefully agree to accept any job to feed their families. That is why capitalism deliberately maintains the level of unemployment at around 5%. There are various ways to regulate such an unemployment rate from importing workforce up to raising interest rates. High-interest rates increase the cost of production, reduce demand for goods and then, of course, decrease the need for work. Capitalism swears by the free market, but it consciously reduces the labour market to exploit workers more.

Exploitation can be significantly reduced or even eliminated by state regulation. If governments establish shorter working hours for workers proportionally to the unemployment rate, it may make equal the number of job posts and workers. This measure could lead to full employment. The workers could then request wages they consider appropriate for the work tasks they perform, and then they wouldn’t be exploited. This measure would establish a fair relations in the process of production, more stable income for workers, and therefore, of course, more stable production. The entire society would gain a lot from this. So why has nobody ever proposed such a simple measure? This is because increasing the incomes of workers reduces the capitalist profits and that is the reason capitalism opposes it.

Another significant improvement for capitalism is going to be based on tax policy. States plan and order their spending. State leaders plan state consumption which makes the most stable production based on the state orders. The governments are supposed to create a tax policy and use the tax money following the interests of the people, but they don’t. The control over the accumulated money collected through taxes gives the most significant power in the state, and the governments tend to spend the tax-collected money in the way they like. However, even governments do not have the most significant control over this money. The western world has invented a very developed mechanism that gives rich people control over everything, including the tax-collected money. The mechanism starts with friendly advice and lobbying of governments and representatives in parliaments and ends with corruption and blackmailing. They are very successful in it, and that means the collective spending follows the interests of a few and not of the people. This is not fair. We all pay taxes, but only some have control over it. That must be changed.

The future of democracy will no longer be based on privileged elected representatives in parliaments and leaders. The development of computer technology allows people to directly participate in making all key decisions of common interest. Individuals will directly create a policy of society, and in the first place, economic policy. People will be particularly interested in deciding on the macroeconomic policies of society. People will directly determine how much money they will want to single out for taxation from their gross incomes. The sum of all such decisions from all people will form the total tax in society. Please, do not get me wrong. This does not mean that each person will pay as much tax as he or she wishes. It says the people will participate in the formation of the state budget and then they will pay taxes according to the heights of their incomes.

Furthermore, every person can decide on how the tax money is going to be spent. Each person will determine how much of his tax money should be allocated for: the defence of the state, public security, education, health, housing, recreation, building infrastructure, etc. Theoretically, people can decide on a collective consumption within the groups as much as they want. All these groups of shared consumption will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. Following the living experience, people will learn how much money should be collected for taxes and what the best way to spend it is. Thus, this spending will follow the needs of people in the most efficient way. Collective consumption will no longer be alienated from society. In such a way, the people will become active members of society and so; they will accept their community a lot more. Once people get the power to directly decide in society, they will be so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to take such power from them.

Technically, there is room for democratic improvement for capitalism, which might bring betterment to society, but capitalism is very close to its limits. Capitalism is not a good enough system. Capitalism is immoral. Capitalism is based on the privileges of authorities and the powerlessness of ordinary people. Privileges are unjust and create alienation. As long as there are injustice and alienation in society, it cannot be right. Capitalism is not a rational enough system because it requires too much unnecessary work and excessively exhausts natural resources. Capitalism cannot establish a stable production and therefore cannot form a stable society. That is the reason capitalism cannot prosper. That is the reason capitalism is a bad enough system and should be replaced. But in today’s society, no idea exists that might remove capitalism. There is no alternative to capitalism. Good leaders who try to restrain capitalism by reforms cannot achieve significant success because capitalism cannot be improved enough to form a good and sane society. After good but unsuccessful leaders, disappointed people often choose a strong right-wing leader who makes the situation worse.

Capitalism suffers in production-saturated societies but prospers well in scarce societies. That is why capitalism often searches for help in wars in which it destroys everything and practically runs its development from the beginning. Capitalism may always withdraw from the crisis; however, one should not think about how to help capitalism survive, but rather about the creation of a far better system for all people. Such a system must take power from authorities and give it to the people. I have proposed such a system, but it is so different from all existing models that people cannot readily accept it even though they would all live far better.

The New Social System: Humanism

All political and economic measures, which I have mentioned so far, can be applied in capitalism. The new system that I have proposed accepts the model of the market economy. Private companies will continue to operate in the same way as today. Significant changes will occur in public companies.

In capitalism, the opinion is built that states are lousy businessmen. In fact, so far that is relatively true. The reason can be found in more privileged working positions of workers in the state sector concerning the ones in private companies. Following the philosophy that inadequately interprets the working rights of workers, jobs in the state sector are generally more protected than in private companies. The workers can hardly lose their jobs even if their work performance is weak, contrary to the workers in privately owned companies. Privileged positions create the lower efficiency of state companies, and as a result, the state companies lose the productivity battle against private enterprises. However, by the structure of production, the state-owned companies are hardly different from the capitalist system of production, and therefore the result of work in state-owned companies should not be worse than the privately owned companies. However, it may be much better. The state-owned companies will organize new production based on more market than capitalism can afford. In the first place, a permanently open labour market will be established, and that will make the economy more productive than the private companies may achieve.

The new division of work is a necessity

Privileges of all kinds must be put to an end. A good economy requires the complete abolition of privileged work positions. One should protect the economic existence of workers rather than jobs. The reform of the new economy will firstly affect the division of labour. There is no fairer or better distribution of employment than an open market competition of workers for every position. The worker who envisages and offers the highest productivity for any public work post at any time will get the job. Productivity could be measured by earned money, by quality and quantity of produced goods, or by the productivity evaluation of workers by other workers or clients. A worker who offers more profits, manufactured goods, better, cleaner, or cheaper production will get the job. That is an idea. How to make such changes to bring the most possible advantages and the least possible disadvantages to society is just a technical problem. I have defined a pretty good solution in my book Humanism, but that will probably have to be more developed by practice.

This kind of labour division naturally requires equality of the number of work posts with the number of workers. Otherwise, it could lead to unnecessary fights for jobs. The new system will make full employment a reality. If the creation of new work positions is not needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing work hours in all companies proportionately to the unemployment rate.

Also, under the new system, each public job will be equally desirable. This will be achieved by giving the job with defined productivity to the worker who demands the lowest price for current labour and, consequently, a lower income. The price of current work will be one of the factors that determine the height of the salaries. Therefore, better jobs will realize relatively lower incomes and worse jobs will be compensated through relatively higher incomes. This way, the labour market will set objective heights of salaries and will balance the interest in all job posts. Since the workers themselves will be setting the price of their current labour, by the same token, they will be the most satisfied with their earnings.

The system would have no meaning if the workers, on their way to succeed greater competitive powers, offer productivities that they would not be able to realize. Today’s politicians do precisely that for example. The new economy will form a very effective system of accountability for the realization of productivities workers offer so that they would not dare offer productivities they cannot accomplish. I will talk more about that later in this essay.

No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job. Such an economy will easily become significantly more productive than the capitalist one so that capitalism will be forced to recede. Also, the workers will no longer be interested in working for private enterprises where they do not have enough freedom to choose jobs or decide on their incomes, nor do they have the opportunity to cut into the profits. In the new system workers will participate in the distribution of profits, which as a rule is not the case in private companies. Soon after this system is implemented, private enterprises will be forced to withdraw and join the new system.

Defining the value of man’s productive power is a necessity

To create a good society, one should define and accept all values that are or should be, relevant to the community. Then, one will need to determine which of these values each person possesses. The sum of all values that a person creates throughout his life, presented by a numerical value, may be called human productive power.

The value of human productive power will incorporate, firstly, capitalist values, such as real estate, money, shares, and all assets that capitalism recognizes as valuable. In fact, this measure will enable simple free association of private enterprises. Owners of private companies will receive stocks for their ownership of the integrated company. They will not be forced to merge their companies, but they will do it under heavy pressure from higher productivities of public companies. Besides it, they will learn that a greater merged company would be more stable to conjuncture changes. The joined owners of companies would realize smaller profits in good businesses, but also smaller losses in bad businesses because large companies will cover the disturbances of earnings on the market. The production of such companies will be very stable because it will be increasingly based on customer orders. If owners of private companies today could have an option to join such a company they would most likely do it because that would save more of their capital value in the frequently arising crises of capitalism.

With human productive power, the establishment of an effective system of responsibilities of workers will be possible. In publicly owned companies, workers will share profits proportionally to the numerically determined responsibility they propose for their work. This is an idea for which I just hint on here. It cannot be understood well enough without reading and analyzing the book Humanism. The same goes for most of the new ideas I am presenting here. The higher responsibility will naturally realize a larger share in profit, in the case that the company’s profit increases. Such profit will now be expressed in a value that reflects the workers’ human productive power. And vice versa, in case of production losses, workers who propose higher responsibility for their work will realize more substantial losses in value representing their productive power.

A good future of humankind cannot be based on the value of capital only. Man needs to become the most considerable value, and this orientation can be stimulated by the value that presents the human productive power. Besides the capital-based value that represents an element of human productive power, we need to recognize and include all other values that society accepts or should accept. Such values are the people themselves, their education, work experience, contributions that they have given, and awards that they have received for creating values to society, etc. The pooling of different forms of value will require a comprehensive study and – indeed – difficult negotiations in society. However, after some time, new, democratically regulated standards of all values that can be created in the community could be established. Such regulation will automatically be applied whenever necessary. This will be explained in more detail in the following paragraphs.

If the society would like to stimulate education, it might raise awards for higher education in the value that represents human productive power. If, for example, a region has too low a birth rate, people may decide to award parents with more children with this kind of value. And vice versa, if a region has too high a birth rate, people may choose to punish parents who have more children by a particular value representing human productive power.

The value of personal productive power will be especially affected by disobedience to the law. If a person acts against the law, they will lose a legally defined value from their productive power. Each crime may be easily judged by existing laws and recalculated into a value representing human productive power. If a person commits a severe crime, he might lose all the value from his productive power and even get a negative value. The proposed system can make the assignment of such a negative productive value much more painful than a prison can be so that prisons will not be needed anymore. Each person will avoid committing any crime carefully. If a person still gets such a negative productive power, he will try hard to fix it, and that will only be possible through hard productive work, and outstanding behaviour over a long period.

Taking into account that most people would probably not like to have their productive power compared to that of other people, such a value may be kept secret, known only to the owner of the value himself. But those who enter into negative productive power will have to take recognizable clothes, and this will force them to improve their behaviour.

Society may regulate whatever it needs through evaluation of human productive power. However, all values cannot be regulated, because people have varying individual needs. Therefore, the value representing personal productive power should also depend on unregulated values, based on people’s opinions about the free actions of others. This is an entirely new measure and, in my opinion, the most critical step of the future. I call it democratic anarchy.

Democratic anarchy is a necessity

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations, wherein every person exercises equal legislative, judicial and executive power in society. It is possible to accomplish it in a manner that gives each person the right to evaluate the activity of any other person. Let each person have the right to allocate a total of say three positive and three negative evaluations per month. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small increase in the total value of productive power to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in a punishment of the same form. Let us say that awards and penalties of such assessments would have an equivalent value of one dollar. If the society were afraid of such power of individuals, the power of evaluation could be reduced. Even the assessment with the power equivalent to just one cent would be enough for the improvement of society.

Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to create the highest possible advantages for the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems to society. Given that all individuals will have the equal right of evaluation, and that they will give their assessments independently of any written rules, such a democracy will assume the form of anarchy. In this straightforward way, the people will for the first time in the history of humankind realize a great direct power in society, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.

People will judge other people freely. That means an immoral person may evaluate other people dishonestly, but it will not matter much because an individual power of one dollar cannot produce harm to anybody. Individuals will not have much influence in society, but their evaluations joined together will be very powerful. A person who receives a large number of negative assessments would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people.

Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively so that he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school anymore, bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will take privileged powers from all the people; this is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.

The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, The President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and for criminal aggression on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. On the other hand, I doubt that his supporters would certainly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would not dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.

Democratic anarchy is actually the most potent tool of justice ever. How come? The answer lies in time. There is a saying: “Silent water moves hills.” The permanent power of evaluation even with such a small force like one dollar will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values. Everyone will try hard to please society in the best possible way. That will create a miracle no other tool of justice has ever been able to make. That will create a good and sane society. In the future, the system of evaluation will probably abolish state laws, police, military force, and very states. Nobody will need them anymore. A perfect society will be formed, and everyone will recognize that. Human society will become prosperous beyond the wildest dreams today.

It is understandably desirable that the value of human productive power becomes very important to society and therefore its acceptance should be additionally stimulated. That will be accomplished, firstly, by giving each person voting power in the community, proportionate to the value of his productive power. I am talking about a significant change in the democratic system. Today, people have only the right to choose their parliamentary representatives. They have neither opportunity nor right to participate in making other decisions that regard their interests in society. We need a compromise equally acceptable to all. Let each person have a right to participate in making any democratic decision in society, but let him earn this right by his productive contribution to the development of value in society. This system proposes unequal voting power, accepted by a consensus of political parties. In reality, it will contribute to the development of democracy because the people will, for the first time, get a chance to directly participate in decision-making for all questions regarding their interests.

Secondly, each person should get an income for work in publicly owned companies proportionate to the total value of his productive power. The value of human productive power will thus become a humanistic form of shares. This measure will additionally encourage residents of specific regions to voluntarily merge their private companies into one big “humanistic” company.

Thirdly, the value of personal productive power must be inherited through generations to be accepted. Through the implementation of such measures, every member of society will recognize the value of human productive power as a great value so that this will contribute significantly to the development of society.

The economic security of people is a necessity

Capitalists are not at all interested in how consumers will make money for the purchase of goods they produce, even though there is no survival of capitalist enterprises without it. Liberal capitalism does not want to take care of the losers on the market, and this is another reason why capitalism must go down in history. The new system will ensure the economic independence of each individual as a precondition for achieving freedom and survival of society as a whole. Only one individual who is not economically cared for enough may endanger the whole community. Also, the system of work competition needs a higher degree of economic security and stability than we have it today so that each resident will receive some kind of income. The height of individual income will primarily depend on the value that presents the productive power of man, then on the price of the current work taking into the account that every activity is a sort of work, as well as on the accomplishment of proposed productivity.

The people will also directly establish the level of minimal earning directly. If workers’ interest in performing their work is insufficient, the society may directly reduce the minimum income, which would stimulate workers to work more. If productivity is higher than necessary, society will then increase the minimum salary and thus lessen the income-based stimulation for work.

Society as a whole will guarantee the economic security and stability of each individual. This will remove the fear that rules throughout the world today. Capitalism finds the primary motivation for work from concern for the economic survival of workers, and that is the reason it cannot guarantee financial security to people. The new system will build motivation for work from the free choice of choosing work and in the satisfaction that comes from it.

To each according to their needs is the future of humankind

By that time, people will learn that collective consumption is significantly more rational and stable than the individual consumption, so that they will directly decide to allocate more money for taxes from their gross incomes. The more people allocate money for tax purposes, the more goods and services will be allocated for the needs of the collective consumption of society. This is the planed consumption that the most developed democracies in today’s world spend mostly on national defence purposes. Given that the new system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the needs of armies and armies will cease to exist. In the new system, war will no longer be possible. People will direct funds for the requirements of the common social standard. I am talking about vast amounts of money that can significantly improve the standard of society. The new system will enable the introduction of free individual consumption. Some states today have free education, free health insurance; some states distribute some goods and services freely. Why would a new system not provide more?

People will change very much in the new system. I think that one far away day; in purpose to establish a more stable and rational economy, all people will freely allocate all the money from their gross incomes for tax purposes. Then, all of the goods and services will become freely available to all people. The products will lose their alienated market value, but the value of the use of goods will still remain. It will be worth the same as air is worth today. I am not talking about utopia or about the oppression of people, but about the advanced technical system that will follow the needs of the people. If only one man, however, would like to keep his own income, theoretically the completely free goods and services would not be applied.

The conclusion

The new economy will naturally step in; it will remove the shortcomings of capitalism and ensure further development of civilization. It will mainly base its production on customer orders so that it will be stable. It will level down the market competition from the level of companies to the level of work posts. There is no more productive economy than the one in which each position gets the best possible worker, and that is the reason why capitalism will go down in history. The new economy will eliminate the disadvantages of capitalism and will bring much more significant advantages to society. After capitalism, humanism will arrive, a system that will follow the needs of people a lot better.

The political and economic model described here will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. The open market of work posts will eliminate the workers’ privileges. This will further eliminate corruption, the main source of the immorality of today’s society. The market for labour will give people the freedom to choose jobs that they like more. Work will become an immediate value to itself, and people will enjoy working. People will be free. Freedom is a state when people do not have to ask permission for anything from anybody except their own conscience. Of course, freedom is dependent on the possession of a conscience. Conscience will be built on a large degree by defined responsibilities of people. Accountability will be so high that people will base their mutual relations in cooperation at all levels of human relationships, and in that manner, they will develop a productive development of society.

In general, this system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experience will demystify alienated values imposed by authorities throughout history and will teach people to live following their proper nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristics of present-day society. People will then realize where real values are. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their needs are not destructive. The proposed system promises a natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.

Once this system is adopted in a smaller community, the people will make this community a beautiful place to live. When the rest of the world sees that, it will not have any other choice but to follow suit. The new system will establish a good and sane society all over the world. It will build a bright future for humanity. Conclusively, I would like to point out that the system I have proposed not only represents the best solution for the future of humanity but also represents the only good solution. It will bring prosperity to society regardless of the level of economic development. The biggest problem is the time needed for people to understand the system, accept and implement it.

November 1, 2009

Humanism is joy

Humanism is the Joy of Living

In this essay, I will talk about how to create a good society with a particular emphasis on the happiness and joy of living. It is a field presented by Erich Fromm. He analyzed the work of the highest authorities in the area of productive living and gave his recommendations on how to achieve a healthy and joyful life. Fromm examined the problem from a psychological perspective and left it to the individuals to accept his proposals. Although Fromm sold many books, it cannot be determined how successful he has been in improving society. I wanted to accomplish a lot more, so I created a political-economic system that will unconditionally and inevitably give all people a good, healthy and joyful life.

People want happiness but are not successful in finding it. I’ll try to explain in this essay why! In short, happiness is the result of satisfying needs, while the inability to meet the needs creates a misfortune. Man forms need through his thoughts. Thoughts objectively define the basic human needs, such as for example, freedom and realization of assets for survival. Inability to achieve freedom and finding food creates an objective misfortune. This type of misfortune today should not exist because society is sufficiently developed to be able to overcome it, but it still exists. Why?

Thoughts are free, and as such, they are free to set needs. Man is aware of his own powerlessness in nature and has a need to overcome it. At such moments a man can easily use the freedom of his thoughts to create a subjective vision of the nature that surrounds him. Generally, such a view tries to glorify his person and diminishes the power of nature. If such an opinion does not directly confront the forces of nature man adopts it as real. In this way, a man builds the illusion of overcoming the powerlessness in nature. That is how the man alienates himself from his nature.

The man most often tries to compensate his powerlessness in nature by creating power over other people. This is achieved by using physical force, ideology, power, wealth, fame, and values that give power over the people. Every success in the field of obtaining control over people in a man’s subjective consciousness easily gives the characteristics of overcoming his objective powerlessness in nature. It is an illusion that brings great happiness. It looks real to the alienated man, and he accepts it as such. A man, who achieves power over people or becomes rich or famous, experiences an eruption of captivating happiness.

But it raises a big problem; the man who becomes convinced that he has overcome his powerlessness before nature sooner or later comes in contradiction with the objective laws of nature. He reveals that his life is passing, that stronger, richer, more famous people emerge than he is. The result is disappointing, the illusion of happiness vanishes and pain appears. Once a man becomes convinced that he has overcome his own powerlessness in nature, any violation of its illusions leads in his subjective consciousness threatens his survival. Then he desperately acts in the field of alienated interests, trying to develop more power, more wealth, or more fame.

But no activity can affect the nature of the origin of such needs. Control over the people cannot overcome objective human weakness in nature. So the man in the field of alienated interest cannot find his satisfaction. That is why such a man lives a permanently dissatisfied life. When a man satisfies his hunger, he does not eat anymore because it would bring problems in his stomach and he is aware of this. But man does not recognize the causes of trouble arising from the formation of alienated needs. Otherwise, he would have dismissed alienated needs. The result of the creation of alienated needs is a lot worse than when a man with a full stomach continues to eat.

In an alienated society, successful people are more alienated from their nature, and therefore lead to stress and divorce for example, and if they do not live reasonably, productively, and disciplined enough, which is difficult to achieve with the privileges they have, then, their way of life leads them to depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. If you pay attention, you can see that the powerful, rich, and famous people who are not responsible for their lives, are not happy. They just try hard to demonstrate success and well-being. As a rule, they are very concerned about their wealth, fame, power, and do not enjoy life because they are alienated from their natural needs.

Furthermore, power over people develops a human narcissistic character that glorifies own personality and underestimates other people. Narcissistic man loses respect for other people. He misses the ability to achieve natural advantages in relation with other people. Greed makes him heartless, perverts his soul and takes away the joy of living. Such a man often creates real suffering to other people preventing them from meeting their needs. Benefits arising from the equal rights among people by their nature are the most significant benefits possible that human nature can accomplish. The man who, because of his ignorance, rejects such benefits is his own worst enemy.

Inability to meet the alienated needs creates alienated misery, but it looks real to man. For example, a man would never commit suicide because he cannot satisfy his natural needs, for example, hunger, but he would do it if he cannot meet his alienated needs. If a man by his subjective conscience finds the origin of his problems outside of himself, then extreme tension coming from an inability to meet his needs turns him to the destruction of the world that surrounds him. Alienation develops irrationality and permanently miserable life from which it is difficult to find a way out. An alienated man lives a spiritually impoverished life no matter what he achieves. He cannot understand the nature of his needs, acts against his nature and lives an unhappy life.

Therefore, the society must develop an orientation that will stimulate objectivity and not alienation of objectivity. This is precisely what the system I have proposed promises. This system will bring society to a natural, pleasant and joyful life.

It may sound unbelievable, but all the problems with happiness and unhappiness will be solved by establishing equal rights among the people. Today we have formal equality proclaimed by human rights laws. In practice, there is no equality because there are a vast number of different privileges of people that bring harm to society. I have proposed a new system which will begin to solve the problem of unequal rights among the people by the system of equal right evaluation among people. I’ve called it democratic anarchy. Each person will have an equal right to evaluate a few people of their choice. The positive assessment will slightly increase the income of the evaluated person, and the negative evaluation will somewhat diminish it. Such an assessment will force every man to respect other people; to do everything they can to beautify other people’s lives and not to do anything that can hurt other people. This will be the basis for the establishment of a healthy, constructive and productive orientation of society.

Equal rights among the people must be extended to equal rights of people to work. The new system proposes an open competition of workers performed by their labour productivity offers for the right to work at any public work post at any time. Productivity will be measured by the earned money, by the quantity and quality of goods produced, or by rating productivity obtained from consumers. The worker who offers more profit, more manufactured goods, better, cleaner and cheaper production will get the job. This is only a technical problem that can be solved. I wrote more about it in the article The Future of Economics.

There is no better division of labour than the work competition on the labour market. The new division of labour will balance the interests of workers at all workplaces by using a newly defined system of responsibility of workers. More responsible positions will be more rewarded in the case of increased productivity and more sanctioned in case of a fall in productivity. Thus, a new division of labour will abolish privileges, one of the most significant sources of problems in our society. Therefore, a new division of work will make all jobs equally desirable. Thus, a new division of labour will be accepted by all members of society as just. Also, the work competition will achieve significantly higher productivity than private enterprise can accomplish, and that will send capitalism with all its disadvantages down in history.

The work competition will allow each man to get a job that they prefer. Thus, work will become the value for itself. A man who loves some work will make more significant efforts to achieve the highest productivity in the desired workplace and thus will obtain the right to work. When a person invests energy in the field he likes, he is building his productive orientation and life satisfaction. Thus, the man’s creative power of being will bring significant stable benefits in the form of the joy of living.

Happiness and joy are similar phenomena, but there is a difference. Happiness is a convenience that cannot exist without unhappiness and generally does not last long. Happiness is more significant if previous unhappiness was higher and vice versa. Happiness does not necessarily depend on man’s activities; it can come or not come. The joy of life is a permanent and stable natural advantage because it occurs as a man’s entire productive orientation. It is hardly accessible when one has no freedom of decision and action which is the case today. For that reason, it is challenging to find a joyful man today.

Real equality among men will reduce the possibility of establishing supremacy among the people, and this will reduce the possibility of the appearance of false and alienated fortune and misfortune. A joyful man much more readily accepts the limitations of his nature, and therefore subjective happiness and unhappiness could harder affect him. A joyful man will not necessarily be able to meet all his needs. Whoever invests a great effort in satisfying his needs and cannot reach satisfaction will be sad, but will not be angry. The system will set an objective justice and respect among the people that will obstruct the appearance of anger. Sadness is a much healthier emotion than anger. It is also a better emotion because it allows a more rational response. Sociologically, as opposed to anger, sadness does not create conflict. Psychologically, sadness in contrast to anger, enable a man to understand objective reality, to solve problems productively and constructively. Angriness destroys the soul and sorrow develops it. Sadness can direct man to a better life and angriness cannot.

Happiness is short-lived. The alienated man wants to keep it as much as possible no matter what, and therefore easily becomes self-centred, greedy and develops many negative character traits that harm him, and society as a whole. Natural and joyful man lives a productive life and knows that his benefits mostly depend on him alone. Because of it, he is very willing and eager to share, ready and willing to cooperate on all levels of human relationships and as such, he helps produce benefits to society.

The proposed system will enable a man to be productive, satisfied with himself, and believe in his future. Such a man is able to love.. Today we distort the meaning of the word love because capitalism by its cruelty virtually destroyed our ability to love. The ability to love cannot be received; it must be earned by the productive way of living. It is, in fact, the highest accomplishment of productive life and gives the biggest joy of living. Besides that, the proposed form of a living will enable a man to reach the most significant knowledge – wisdom. A wise man has everything he needs regardless of how quantitatively or qualitatively it is, and therefore he is the master of his emotional states and lives a full, peaceful, and joyful life. This man is a free man.

Equal rights among people will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experiences will demystify the values imposed by authorities and will teach people to live following their proper nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristics of present-day society. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their needs are not destructive.

The system I have proposed will enable the people to develop themselves correctly and to be mentally and physically healthy. Healthy individuals will promote a healthy society, and a healthy society will form even more healthy individuals. The process will develop, and as a final result, a harmonious and good society will appear with individuals full of the joy of living. The proposed system promises a natural and highly prosperous development of society, beyond the wildest dreams today. The system is defined, in detail, in my book, “The Humanism” available free of charge here.

April 8, 2004

Updated November 13, 2013

Humanism Clearly

Humanism Clearly

Throughout history, authorities have been trying hard to keep power in their own hands, just as they are doing today. Even though nowadays a formal democracy exists almost everywhere, the people are still impotent. This is the main reason why the world passes through phases of destruction, instead of through continuous development. The impotence of the society is so great that not even an idea exists of what a good society should look like. Finally, thanks to the development of information technology and to my persistence, I have discovered the path to create a good society, as defined in many utopias. My utopia, described in the book “Humanism,” is no longer wishful thinking, but a pure science that determines an inevitable and bright future of humankind.

A positive future for humanity ultimately requires power in the hands of the people. Each person should have the ability to directly represent and protect his interests wherever he needs to. I am talking about brand new ideas that will give people the power that is, under present circumstances, unthinkable. In the first place, I need to stress that new ideas will bring about a complete change of the existing social systems since they have been built under the influence of authorities.

The new political and economic system that I have proposed is equally acceptable to all. It will end all kinds of oppression and give much greater freedom to everyone, but it will also require each individual to be responsible to other individuals in society. The whole system is based on a highly developed form of democracy. It will even realize greater economic productivity than capitalism can, and stability that capitalism cannot provide at all. Ultimately, it will force capitalism to withdraw. This new system prevents crime, wars, and all kinds of destructiveness in society, as well as encouraging the development of human productive powers. It will totally change the world and give a wonderful life and harmony to humanity.

To create a good society, we should first define and accept all kinds of values that are or should be, important to society. We then need to find out how much of these values each person possesses. The sum of all values that a person creates throughout his life, presented by a numerical value, may be called human productive power. Taking into account that most people would probably not like to have their productive power compared to that of other people, such a value may be kept secret, known only to the owners of the values themselves.

The value of human productive power will incorporate, firstly, capitalist values, such as real estate, money, shares, and all assets that capitalism recognizes as valuable. Besides the capital-based value that represents an element of human productive power, we need to acknowledge and include all other values that society accepts or should accept. Such values are the people themselves, their education, work experience, contributions that they have given, and awards that they have received for creating values to society, etc. The pooling of different forms of value will require a comprehensive study and – indeed – difficult negotiations in society. However, after some time, new democratically regulated standards of all values could be established. Such regulation will be automatically applied whenever necessary. I’ll explain it better in the next paragraphs.

The human productive power will undoubtedly be strongly affected by the economic productivity of workers. In publicly owned companies, workers will share profits proportionally to the numerically determined responsibility they propose for their work. Higher responsibility will naturally realize a larger share in profit, in case that the company’s profit increases. Such profit will now be expressed in a value that reflects the workers’ human productive power. And vice versa, in case of production losses, workers who propose higher responsibility for their work will realize more significant declines in value representing their productive power.

If the society would like to stimulate education, it might raise awards for higher education in the value that represents human productive power. If, for example, a region has too low a birth rate, people may decide to award parents with more children with this kind of value. And vice versa, if a region has too high a birth rate people may choose to punish parents who have more children by a specific value representing human productive power.

The value of personal productive power will be especially affected by disobedience to the law. If a person acts against the law, he will lose a legally defined value off his productive power. Each crime may be easily judged by existing laws and recalculated into a value representing human productive power. If a person commits a severe crime, he might lose all the value of his productive power and even get a negative value. The proposed system can make an assignment of such a negative productive value much more painful than a prison can be so that prisons will not be needed anymore. Each person will avoid committing any crime carefully. If it still happens that a person gets such a negative productive power, he will try hard to escape it, and that will only be possible by hard productive work and by outstanding behaviour over a long period.

Society may regulate whatever it needs through evaluation of human productive power. However, all values cannot be regulated, because people have varying individual needs. Therefore, the value representing personal productive power should also depend on unregulated values, based on people’s opinions about the free actions of others. This is an entirely new idea and, in my opinion, the most important invention of the future. I call it democratic anarchy.

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations, wherein every person exercises equal legislative, judicial and executive power in the society. It is possible to accomplish it in a manner that gives each person the right to evaluate the activity of any other person. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small increase of the total value of productive power to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in punishment in the same form. Let us say that awards and penalties of such assessment would have an equivalent value of one dollar. If the society were afraid of such power of individuals, the power of the evaluation could be reduced. Even the assessment with the power equivalent to just one cent would be enough for the improvement of society.

Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to create the most significant possible advantages for the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems to society. Given that all individuals will have the equal right of evaluation, and that they will give their assessments independently of any written rules, such democracy will assume the form of anarchy. In this straightforward way, the people will for the first time in the history of humankind realize a great direct power in society, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.

Here we need a compromise equally acceptable to all. Let each person have a right to participate in making any democratic decision in society, but let him earn this right by his productive contribution to the increase of values in society. This system proposes unequal voting power, accepted by a consensus of political parties. In reality, it will contribute to the development of democracy because the people will, for the first time, get a chance to directly participate in decision-making about all questions regarding their interests.

Secondly, each person should get an income for work in publicly owned companies, proportionate to the total value of his productive power. This measure follows the existing state of affairs to a large extent, but it will also introduce new rules, more justice and order in the system of the income distribution. Thirdly, personal productive power must be inherited through generations in order to be accepted. Through the implementation of such measures, every member of society will recognize the value of human productive power as a great value – this will contribute significantly to the development of society.

he new economic system adopts the existing model of the market economy. Private enterprises will continue to function in the same way as they do today. The new system will change publicly owned companies significantly. First, the changes will affect the division of labour. There is no fairer or better division of labour than an open market competition of workers for every work position. The worker who envisages and offers the highest productivity for any public work post at any time will get the job. This measure is necessary, in the first place, because it will definitely abolish work privileges that are the basis of inconvenient orientation and problems in society. If you think that this might lead to a rat race for work positions and you are already afraid for your job, you need not to be. The new system will create a new regulation of the division of labour that will prevent such undesirable effects.

The new system will make full employment a reality. If the creation of new work positions is not needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing work hours in public companies proportionately to the unemployment rate. Also, under the new system, each job will be equally desirable. This will be achieved by giving the job with defined productivity to the worker who demands the lowest price for current labour and, consequently, a lower income. Better jobs will realize lower salaries and worse jobs will be better compensated through higher incomes. This way, the labour market will set an objective measure of direct work value and will balance the interest in all job posts. Since the workers themselves will be setting the price of their current labour, by the same token, they will be the most satisfied with their earnings.

The new economy will necessarily require an efficient system of determining the workers’ responsibility for the realization of productivity that they have offered. The system would establish a new way of bearing the workers’ responsibility through the value of their productive power. A failure to realize offered productivity or a fall in productivity would reduce the total value of workers’ productive power proportionately to their responsibility in the productive process. And vice versa, the rise in productivity will increase the total value of workers’ productive power proportionately to their responsibility in the process of production.

No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job. Such an economy will easily become significantly more productive than the capitalist one so that the latter will be forced to recede. Also, the workers will no longer be interested in working for private enterprises, where they do not have enough freedom to choose jobs, to decide on their income, nor do they have an opportunity to share in the profits. Soon after this system is implemented, private enterprises will be forced to withdraw and join the new system.

The owners of means of productions who voluntarily surrender their private property to society will realize an increase in the total value of their productive power proportionate to the value of the surrendered property. The value of personal power will become a humanistic form of shares because each worker will receive for work in a public company an income proportionate to the value of his productive power. This fact may additionally encourage inhabitants of a region to voluntarily pool their private companies into what I call a “humanistic” corporation.

The humanistic corporation will develop its production by customers’ orders, and will thus achieve the most stable production. Work competition will ensure the best production performance, and will, therefore, realize the greatest consumer convenience to society. Last but not least, the system will be based on such a high degree of workers’ and managers’ responsibility that they will have to cooperate at all levels of production processes and to establish a high level of consensus before making decisions. This kind of market competition will inevitably end up in cooperation at all levels of production processes, and will thus contribute to the productive development of society.

Democracy will improve dramatically as well. The future of democracy will no longer be based on elected leaders. Development of computer technology allows people to participate directly, through a referendum, in making all key decisions of joint interest. To prevent an overruling of the minority in a society, all the referenda questions must be created by the consensus of political parties. Each decision may have a scale of values prepared by the agreement of political parties; each voter may then choose a value that suits him the best. The mean of all the values expressed by members of the population, as a function of their voting power, would point to the acceptability of each and every decision in the society.

The people will directly create policies of their society, firstly, the economic policy. In the system of pooled ownership over means of production, money will also be pooled. Joint ownership of money will make the introduction of direct democracy into the economy possible. Each voter will directly participate in the distribution of the collectively owned wealth realized through the revenue of a collective. The money will be distributed for purposes of development of the economy (the total quantity of money for investments in the economy), for individual consumption (the total amount of money for workers’ earnings), and for collective consumption (the total amount of money intended for collective consumption of the whole population).

Given that the new system proposes unequal voting power, each voter will actually distribute the total value of his productive power among different voting groups. The sum total of all the voters’ statements, given in all voting groups, will form the total amount of money intended for these expenses groups. In such a simple way the people will actually directly create the macroeconomic policy of society. The present-day system of income distribution, establishment of fiscal and developmental policies of society, will thus be upgraded democratically.

The new system has to ensure economic independence of each individual as the main precondition for the establishment of a free society. Besides, the system of work competition requires a higher level of social insurance than we have today, and for that reason, every inhabitant will receive some income. The individual income level will depend primarily on the total value of personal productive power, then on the price of current labour, as well as on the accomplishment of proposed productivity. Within the distribution of money intended for individual consumption, the people will also directly establish the ranges of workers’ earnings, by setting the level of minimal earning directly. If workers’ interest in performing their work is insufficient, the society may directly reduce the minimal income, which would stimulate workers to work more. And vice versa, if productivity is higher than necessary, society will then increase the minimum salary and thus reduce the income-based stimulation for work.

Assets intended for economic development will have to be further allocated to those sectors of a “humanistic” corporation that predicts higher shorter-term profits in the free market. In that way, society, as a whole, will achieve the most significant consumer and economic benefits. People may also directly decide on the distribution of money for collective-consumption needs, up to the level of their interest. In the future, the instability of the market economy will be replaced by a stable, planned production based on customers’ orders. Under such circumstances, the market policy will be less anarchic and more democratic, which will open up a possibility of development of a democratically planned economy.

The political and economic model described here will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. In general, this system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experience will demystify the values imposed by authorities and will teach people to live following their proper nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristics of present-day society. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their needs are not destructive. The proposed system promises a natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the proposed system not only provides the best solution for the future of mankind but also the only good one. Like a crown, the system predicts that the work will become a direct value itself, whereas commodities will lose their alienated value. Therefore, the development of such a system may realize the nowadays-impossible goal: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” In any case, the system will make Paradise on Earth.

My book, “Humanism” elaborates everything I have said here more precisely, and much more. It is available online free of charge here. The changes I have described will affect almost every science. An individual can make no more significant improvement here. That is a job for teams of scientists. I will appreciate anyone willing to cooperate with me on this project, anyone, giving me comments on the book, or even everyone who would just read it.

Thank you very much.

Humanism in Brief

Humanism in Brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humanism for Dummies

Humanism for Dummies

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

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

Are we free?

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

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

May direct democracy give a satisfactory solution?

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

So what we are going to do?

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

How?

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

What would the evaluation bring to society?

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

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

Are we capable of evaluating other people?

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

What’s wrong with the division of work today?

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

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

So what is the solution?

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

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

What would we get?

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

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

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

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

What would we lose?

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

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

Why wouldn’t we accept these ideas?

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

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

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

Humanism in Hints

Humanism in Hints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 25, 2004

Humanism in Essence

Humanism in Essence

A developed economy of a good society

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 25, 2004

Humanism in sentence

The history of humankind is bad history because it has been created in fighting for privileges; when we end privileges we will get a good and sane society.

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