Category: English

Labour Price

3.1.2.2.1       Price of Work  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Past Labour Value

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Current Labour Price

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Humanistic Policy

3.1.1   Basis of Policies of Humanism

 

Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ancient direct democracy will be needed again

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

System Expectations

3.3        Expectations of the New System  

 

Communism should be considered the best social system

 

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

 

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

 

***

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

***

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The conclusion of the book

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Commune Disalienation

3.1      Disalienation of the Commune 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

***

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                                                       

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

 

***

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

***

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

 

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

  

Socialism

 

 

2.2.2   Socialism

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

 

Capitalism

 

2.2.1   Capitalism

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

***

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

***

 

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

 

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

 

 


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

C

Sociology of Alienation

2.2      Sociology of Alienation

 

Dictatorship of Autocracy 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Democracy 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

***

 

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

 

 

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

Psychology of Alienation

 

2.1           Psychology of Alienation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

The Society

 

 

1.1           Society

 

The natural laws of society

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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