Review by Prof. Dr. of Philosophy Andrija B. K. Stojković
Belgrade, September 15, 1992
Mr. Aleksandar Šarović invested a great effort in this study to examine, by himself, the overall complex Philosophical-ethical, and primarily political-economic and social problems of the society, and to propose his own system of a socio-political order and development of the mankind that would finally – at the level of modern development of the production forces of the post-industrial revolution and the corresponding degree of the development of human consciousness and relationships help materialize a century-long dream of mankind in an optimal satisfaction of human needs, elimination of all forms of exploitation and alienation of men – ensuring a general prosperity of a “healthy society” and happiness of all its members and associations. The general title of this work, THE HUMANISM, arises from such intent of the author, while the concretized content of this notion is given in the subtitle.
It is worth mentioning at the very outset that the author offered in the study the proof of his noble intentions, high intelligence and substantial erudition. It is understandable that in such a complex interdisciplinary area, the author did not manage to be equally effective in all aspects of content, structure, and terminology. However, there is no need to give him suggestions or offer criticism in that regard. The text is philosophical-ethical (with the notes of a scientific and social utopia) in terms of its practical purpose, sense and general results, and political-economic and social-sociological in general.
Presentations are structured in three parts: The Analysis of the Natural State; The Process of Alienation; and the Process of Disalienation. The author does not understand the natural state of man and society, either along the lines of Hobbes or along those of Rousseau. He recognizes the man and society as beings with natural needs, aspiring to optimal satisfaction through their knowledge and work in processing nature. In the man’s attitude towards nature, the author also identifies the determinants of human freedom as always absolute and relative. Aspiring to the “greater conveniences” the work brings, the man must overcome “the power of nature” by getting familiar with its structure and laws; the conveniences are “fictitious” and real; “what creates the conveniences has its value”, and “the value is actually proportionate to the needs” (Boža Knežević used to teach something similar). The work has its “usable value” to the extent it “directly brings the conveniences.” Like F. Bacon, O. Cont, and others, the author believes that “knowledge gives the man the power that is in its form unlimited to nature” and proportionately to the degree of the knowledge the man “can form greater needs because he can satisfy them. By satisfying the needs, the man “comes closer to freedom in the broadest sense.” The author applies the above premises to the society” although an independent “free biological individual” – the man is “simultaneously a social being,” and “the society as does the man, has identical reactions in the relationship with nature.”
“In a natural society, the interest of the man arises from his needs, and the needs are inalienable from the needs of the society.” According to the author, an individual can successfully encounter a society, ensuring that both sides benefit: “The society that knows” ensures the reproduction of a constructive orientation and can plan its own development and prosperity. “Such a society is a healthy society.”
Mr. Šarović then passes onto the “Process of Alienation, and then to that of disalienation, as a way to a healthy society (as Erich Fromm called the disalienated society). Our author, Mr. Šarović, develops his concept: “subjectivity creates alienation,” and he tries to conceive an “absolute objectivity” that would “form an absolute naturalness that represents an ideal of the man’s living.” That process is regulated through politics and economy so that the “process of disalienation” materializes by way of democracy and a communal system.
The author’s understanding of the commune is broad and all-inclusive: it encompasses even the most minute cells of social reproduction, from, for example, one thousand members to all of humanity. By developing his own model of communal organization of the mankind, the author also includes the solution of all productive, economic-financial and other problems, particularly the problems of the work price, commodity price, money, accumulation, income distribution, real estate and collective consumption, coming to the crown of his system that associates with Marx – to the “association of the communes” and a possible realization of “free-of-charge economy and consumption”, i.e. the communist work to the benefit of the society as a natural need.
On the grounds of his own understanding of the results and possibilities of the “science of science”, and of the total computerization of the productive and overall social process – the author gave his solutions of the relationship of the private and stockholding-social ownership and entrepreneurship, the formation of a new work organization according to concrete and prospective needs of the society, the measurement of the quantity and quality of labour productivity and the corresponding reward for the performance achieved; the instruments of a permanent compensation of the production process, responsibility, evaluation of the contribution of each individual from each individual; he included a noble labour competition and a human distribution of workers according to their abilities, knowledge and performance. In short, the author sought efficient instruments for free competition, along with the necessary human correctives, to facilitate the overall development of human consciousness and civilization.
The author is convinced that they have found the key to creating a “healthy society.” In the system he is developing, and whose creation he is proposing, he believes that “the man will be finding new interests in the outer world and in his own spiritual development. The man will then have a vast quantity of leisure time, which he will dedicate to himself, society, nature, art, science, culture, philosophy, sports, entertainment, and relaxation. A new ethics will be formed “that will likely exclude the need for mutual evaluation of people” (already supposed by H. Spencer); the more the man will be able to know himself, “the abler he will be to build harmony with the environment, to become closer with another man, more able to find the easiness of living, peace, brightness, joy, love, wisdom, more able to have a long and good-quality life”.
Once the reader has finished a difficult but valuable reading of this study, what is it that he could recommend to the author? The most appropriate recommendation could be that the author presents his results in a discussion within the Hegel’s Society and the Sociological Society of Serbia, and to use the results of the professional criticism for his further work. As to the practical implementation of his concept, this issue has to be left over to the social practice.