3.2.1 Association of the Policies
Generally, the origin of states has rarely had anything to do with democracy. The people have seldom been asked in what country they would have liked to live. The states are the product of the imposition of the needs of autocratic rulers. The solution is not the negation of states because of their non-democratic origin. The exit lies in their maximal democratization.
In present-day states, the parliamentary form of democracy is prevailing. Society accepts it as the most democratic form of ruling society. However, after the performed election of leaders, delegates, or a party, the individual has no impact on setting the rules for collective actions. Delegated members in the parliament carry out an indirect form of democracy that easily declines from the election programs. The present-day state is a more or less closed, authoritative formation that maintains the coordination of alienated social actions by a system of more substantial or lesser pressure. This state produces alienation, autocracy, exploitation, protectionism, nationalism, and destructiveness.
Elements of the politics and economy of capitalism have achieved progress in democracy and economy; however, they cannot develop further and, therefore, impede the development of society. The new method of social behaviour in the commune substitutes for and promotes all elements of politics and the economy of capitalism, thus allowing the continuation of political and economic prosperity.
One should hope that this book will be of interest to some foundations, state leadership, political parties, associations, and individuals who would not regret their contribution to the development of socialism. Naturally, the socialist system will require comprehensive scientific analysis and a theoretical simulation of the commune. Then, when satisfactory results are established, it is possible to experimentally apply the socialist system in a smaller social community that would accept such a system.
***
The commune is a part of the state as a sovereign social organization. The commune’s delegates in the state assembly represent the interests of their respective communes. In this way, each commune makes state decisions in creating the country’s external and internal policy and defence of the country. The commune alone defines its internal affairs. Nevertheless, each commune is sovereign enough to enact its laws and regulations on its territory if they are not in collision with the accepted constitutional laws of the state.
The socialist commune will have a closed labour market concerning the state and an independent economy. The workers from the capitalist world will not be able to freely apply for jobs in the commune with the socialist system. They cannot realize income in the socialist commune if they do not have past labour points. Transfer of workers may be allowed administratively if a worker in their commune sells their property and thus gathers a sufficient quantity of money to buy past labour points in the socialist commune. Such workers will also be unfavourable because they cannot be compensated for their participation in building collective ownership of their commune. Therefore, they would have a lower income than the worker who has realized equally valuable past labour in the new commune. The transfer of workers from one commune to another will be accessible only if communes establish an equal system. Then the organization of work would be performed on the level of associated communes. Regulation of the transfer of the value deriving from past labour would be then carried out automatically.
The socialist system will ensure the commune’s economic, social, and political stability. It would allow the commune to develop faster and more stable than capitalism in all fields. This also means the people would be reaching more remarkable social advantages than in capitalism. When socialism shows positive results, it may serve as a model to other communes. Then political parties of other communes will accept socialism, contributing to disseminating socialism worldwide.
Accepting socialism by several communes opens up a higher degree of association among the communes based on implementing a new political and economic system. In this way, the commune keeps a part of its political and economic sovereignty and transfers a portion onto the association of communes. The association will be based on the collective labour market and collective capital. Such an association may bring direct conveniences and inconveniences to the commune’s population.
Conveniences would manifest in a free choice of labour in associated communes. In this way, there would be a higher probability of finding a job in which a worker is interested and finding a suitable residence and, consequently, realizing significant conveniences. Further, associated communes are economically more potent. They are thus able to achieve higher prosperity in society and greater certainty in business operation in the case of disruptions in the market.
For the same reasons, the population may also experience the association of communes unfavourably. Namely, a more significant number of workers create a more substantial work competition, and it may result in more difficulty in exercising the right to work in one’s interest. Moreover, greater economic system stability will inevitably require a spillover of money between the communes for income, collective spending and economic development needs. The population may assess such a redistribution of money as unfavourable.
In this regard, the assemblies of the communes wishing to unite will form a program that will clearly define the modalities and procedure of the association. Such a program should be adopted with at least 2/3 of the votes of political parties in the assemblies of communes that want to unite. Naturally, such decisions will not be easily or quickly implemented, which is acceptable because society needs time to adapt to significant changes.
As the association of communes can bring benefits and inconveniences to the inhabitants, it must be carried out by the democratic vote of the population through a referendum. The association of communes is an act that significantly affects social action, so a substantial majority of the people should accept it. Let it be at least 2/3 of the votes cast and at least 1/2 of the total population of each commune. After the decision of the political parties, it will probably not be difficult to collect a sufficient number of votes of people in the referendum.
One should assume that the practice will show over time that the association of the communes brings a larger market that enables greater profits. Communes that would not be willing to associate themselves with other communes would become economically weaker than associated communes. Besides that, a larger-scale association enables higher productivity realized by a stronger work competition and brings more conveniences in operating results. A larger-scale association will result in a greater certainty in doing business in the case of any disruption emerging in the market. A larger-scale association of communes will form a more significant accumulation of collective money, ensuring meeting a larger quantity of people’s needs. A larger-scale association will allow more possibilities for the population to exert direct influence on making decisions of joint interest on the territory of associated communes. A larger-scale association will enable the people to evaluate the actions of any individual in the region of the associated communes. Briefly, a larger-scale association brings more benefits to the community. Therefore, it may be expected that the population of the communes will aspire to such a larger-scale association.
Association can develop to the state level as a sovereign social organization in a particular territory. However, unlike the commune, the state as a completely sovereign social organization enacts the constituent and other laws of the country. The adoption and amendments to the constitutive and other basic laws are prepared and determined by the state parliament with its expert services. Fundamental rules and decisions regulate the rights and duties of citizens and relations in production and distribution. Delegates in the state parliament should adopt important state laws with at least 2/3 of the deputies’ votes and then forward them to the population in a referendum. Less critical laws, regulations and decisions covering specific activities and not being of general interest to the people are accepted if they receive a majority vote of the delegates or representatives in the state’s parliament.
The population declares itself through computer applications over the Internet by accepting or rejecting such laws. Laws that receive at least 2/3 of the residents who voted and are taken by at least 1/2 of the state’s total population would be passed, and the rest would be rejected or revised. Such adoption of the law should not be problematic if political parties in the state parliament have previously done it. As the population directly decides on its laws, it is interested in knowing them and accepting them of its own free will. Therefore, they are no longer alienated from society.
***
The democratic approach to the association of the communes also requires freedom of disassociation and limited mutual links. Today, there are no international rules governing the secession of parts of the states. The right to secession should be equal to the freedom of association. Every republic, province and even the smallest territorial community of people, in this case, a commune, should have the right to self-determination. Such a decision should be made by at least 2/3 of the representatives’ votes in the commune assembly in the same way it adopts its association. Then the decision is adopted or rejected by the commune inhabitants with at least 2/3 of the votes of people who participated in the, and at least 50% of the voices of the total number of commune inhabitants.
If a referendum in the commune would confirm the will of the people for self-determination, then representatives of the commune and state would engage in the division of assets and liabilities, division of the collectively acquired goods of the commune and the state, including regulation of all obligations, claims and the newly established relations. Based on the agreement achieved, a referendum would need to be organized on the territory of the entire state.
Established disassociation would be accepted if it were in the interest of at least half of the total number of inhabitants of the state. Since the commune has the right to self-determination, the state also needs to have the right to self-determination that can prevent the secession of the commune. The process of disassociation cannot be easy because the enormous number of ties between and among communes, companies, and inhabitants created from the establishment of the state should be considered.
An objective analysis can assume that the population will reject disintegration processes through their practice because they cannot bring greater economic or social benefits. Significant benefits and benefits generally arise from the integration process. An integrated state in socialism can function better than a commune. It will bring more benefits to society than the commune can because it gives more freedom of choice, more power to the people, and more productivity and stability to the economy.
More associated people will have more power to develop objective values and thus demystify authorities and overcome the alienation they have imposed. Less alienated people create less problems and are less aggressive. Of course, conflicts among individuals still might be possible; however, nobody will be able to raise disputes among individuals to a social or national level, as democratic anarchy will sanction such attempts. And because the progressive orientation offered by socialism will not produce followers who would support them.
