So far, authorities have imposed rules necessary to create a good society. Even if authorities successfully make such rules, a good community may last as long as the authorities' power lasts. No authority lasts indefinitely, so that no authority may create a permanently good society. Equal human rights, once established, will last forever, enabling people to produce a permanently good society.
***
This paper presents a theoretical exploration of how to create a bright future for humankind. This paper aims to persuade readers that achieving significant societal progress requires the full implementation of equal human rights through political and economic reforms. These reforms should address social problems and build good capitalism, good socialism, and good communism. This manuscript elaborates on it. Highlights:
• The Natural Laws of Society
• Full Employment is the Turning Point of Capitalism
• Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy
• Developed Market of Work will Create Socialism
• Communism Should Be Considered the Best Social System
• Conclusion
The Natural Laws of Society
Social relationships do not occur randomly; they are shaped by social conditions. When the same social conditions consistently produce identical results, they may be referred to as the natural laws of society. The natural laws of society may establish a good society, but they have yet to be defined. This paper determines the natural laws of society. Furthermore, this paper argues that once people accept the natural laws of society, they will build an incomparably better community than ever before.
Society’s natural laws should determine social behaviour, similarly to how the laws of physics determine powers in nature. Understanding the laws of physics lets people live in harmony with the physical world. Likewise, the natural laws of society should define social relationships. Understanding society’s natural laws is supposed to enable people to live in a social harmony that is impossible to disrupt.
Considering that society’s natural laws were never defined, this study used the book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (Newton, 2006), written in 1687, as a reference model for determining natural social laws. Accepting society’s natural laws is supposed 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 form constructive social relations.
2nd natural law of society: Strong people tend to attack the weak, forming a violent society. People of equal power respect and refrain from attacking each other in normal social conditions. They form 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 foster constructive and harmonious social relations, leading to people being satisfied with their lives.
The first and second natural laws of society are basically self-explanatory. They might have some exceptions due to the perversion existing in the alienated world. However, once society recognizes the natural laws that govern it, it should eliminate perversion and establish constructive, harmonious social relations without exception.
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 among satisfied people, as equal human rights have never existed. 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.
Authorities prevent the establishment of equal human rights to be able to oppress, control and exploit people. This manuscript considers authorities as individuals who have power over people. Authorities have always had a common interest in preventing equal human rights to keep their power and privileges in society. Additionally, they impose subjective knowledge on people to manipulate them. Such knowledge alienates people from their nature, from the possibility of finding an escape from an inferior position, and creates long-term problems for society. The history of humankind is a history of imposed subjective knowledge by authorities. It is the primary origin of social alienation and societal problems. For example, powerful authorities have often claimed that God supported their power over people and that people had to accept their subjective opinions. However, according to the Bible, not even God wants power over people because it is fundamentally wrong.
Authorities tend to increase their power by becoming dictators. When they achieve such a goal, people have considerable difficulties escaping from their oppression. Throughout history, resistance to dictators could have resulted in death penalties. People, including scientists, had to accept the subjective knowledge imposed by dictators. Once alienated knowledge is accepted by society, it becomes a substantial burden that prevents the development of society.
This paper argues that only objective knowledge can effectively address social problems and enhance society. People had to dismiss authorities and the subjective knowledge they imposed to reach objective knowledge, but authorities resisted it. People also resisted authorities and succeeded in building a better world. Scientists have created more objective knowledge that has improved society. The development of society has led to an increase in human rights. The United Nations has established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has improved the world. Social scientists have developed a democracy that replaced historical dictators, bringing better lives to all.
However, authorities have also developed their skill to prevent social improvements. In this regard, authorities have become the elite, possessing enormous financial power that strongly influences or controls media, science, and politics. They still wield dictatorial power in society, although it is less visible, yet still very controlling. The elite have largely accepted the principle of equal human rights on a formal level, but in reality, human rights are not equal. Presidents of countries may send people to war, whereas people cannot send presidents to war. Employers may fire employees, but employees cannot fire their employers. 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 somewhat equal human rights because such rights are not equal. Unequal human rights form privileged authorities who prevent the establishment of a prosperous society. The lack of equal human rights should be considered the leading cause of societal problems.
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 the knowledge that authorities have imposed on society. For example, laws today are based on ancient Roman law. Thus, countries still have imprisonment sentences and, in some cases, death penalties, which means they have not developed much from dictatorial times. Under the influence and pressure of authorities, the social sciences have not recognized the natural laws of society. As a result, social scientists are unable to solve society's problems. They actually give the impression that natural social laws cannot be defined due to the complexity of social relations.
This paper suggests that social knowledge created by authorities cannot build a good society. It already would if it could. Also, social knowledge built on the alienation authorities impose cannot be correct. A good society requires creating new social knowledge based on equal human rights. People with equal rights possess significantly more objective social knowledge than subjective authorities can provide. Equal human rights are entirely opposite to hierarchical relationships and have a distinct set of logic and outcomes. Additionally, this paper asserts that equal human rights can permanently prevent power-hungry authorities from oppressing people. Therefore, establishing equal human rights is crucial for shaping a brighter future for humankind. This paper elaborates on it.
The theory of equal human rights faces a significant challenge in its realization. Privileged people dislike equal human rights because they take privileged power from them. The rich despise equal human rights and suppress them with their financial power. Politicians would not like to lose their power by implementing equal human rights. Social scientists are reluctant to accept the knowledge necessary for implementing equal human rights because it challenges the knowledge they have acquired. As a result, politicians, the media, the social sciences, and the wealthy prevent equal human rights. Thus, they block the bright future for humankind. This paper fights back by presenting the importance of equal human rights.
***
Society has compromised the equal right to work by allowing unemployment to exist. Unemployed people often have to accept poorly paid jobs to support themselves. It causes the exploitation of workers. Equal human rights are intended to bring justice to the economy by reducing work hours until unemployment is eliminated. 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 a policy would solve today’s socio-economic problems and build good capitalism.
Equal human rights are expected to significantly improve the economy. 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 price for current work. It is nothing but a developed work market that is open at all times. Of course, such an economy cannot be established soon, as it will require significant development before people are willing to adopt it. But once people establish it, the burdens and benefits of a living will be justly distributed among the people, forming a just society. In addition, private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies, which will send capitalism down in history. This idea presents an enormous opportunity for socio-economic improvement capable of building good socialism.
Ultimately, equal human rights imply that all individuals should have equal access to legislative, judicial, and executive powers within society. Everyone should have equal rights to evaluate others for their actions. Each positive evaluation should be accompanied by a small award for the assessed person, and each negative evaluation should result in a corresponding small punishment. Such a policy would encourage everyone to please others and avoid hurting anyone. This is essential for creating 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 the final result of understanding its natural laws. The purpose of this paper is to explain this theory and provide evidence for it as much as possible.
Full Employment is the Turning Point of Capitalism
Unemployment creates the exploitation of workers. When a job position opens on the market during a period of high unemployment, a large number of candidates apply. The competition among workers may reduce their incomes to a level sufficient only for basic survival. Unemployed workers have to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. Unemployment has widened the gap between the rich and the poor, creating injustice and problems in capitalism.
Employers favour unemployment because they profit from the exploitation of workers. Employers can easily maintain unemployment because they do not necessarily need to hire employees most of the time. Large employers support political parties that maintain unemployment through economic policy. It starts with importing cheap labour and ends with rising interest rates. This is how unemployment becomes state policy and how state policy maintains the exploitation of workers. To secure their privileges, the rich have imposed, believing that unemployment is an unavoidable price to pay for technological development. They have pressured economic science to accept that “0% of unemployment is not a positive thing” (Moffatt, 2020), which they accomplished.
The capitalists have found an unemployment rate of about 5% the most convenient, so 5% unemployment has become a “normal” state in capitalism. This “normal” state exploits workers by dependence on capitalists, while workers’ total purchasing power produces enough profits for employers. The market economy should appreciate workers more, but capitalism resists it. Through a long struggle, workers have succeeded in getting some rights through laws and trade unions. Still, the existence of poverty confirms that the interests of workers are not protected enough.
Society may introduce justice in production processes through a fully employed environment that balances the number of jobs with the number of workers. Reducing work hours will make full employment a reality. It will require the prevention of work imports and the regulation of overtime work. Such a measure will increase workers’ demand on the market and put them in a better position in production processes. Increased demand for workers on the market will increase workers’ wages and reduce exploitation. However, no formula can precisely determine what exploitation is. Only workers dissatisfied with their earnings may present it. Workers will certainly be more satisfied in a fair labour market where their work is equally in demand as the jobs they need. Full employment can be regulated through a work-hour policy. If more workers seek employment than jobs are available, work hours should be reduced, and vice versa; if more jobs are available, work hours should be extended. The more balanced the work market, the fairer the production processes. The more satisfied workers are, the less likely they are to be exploited.
Society may increase workers' satisfaction by further reducing work hours, which will create negative unemployment. Negative unemployment is a shortage of workers on the market. It will further increase workers’ demand and incomes. Negative employment may put workers in a privileged position that employers have traditionally held. When workers are not available on the market, employers who need more workers will have to attract workers from other companies by raising their salaries. Competition among employers will initiate a chain reaction, leading to increased wages for workers.
The rise of workers’ salaries in the negative unemployment environment was proven in the 14th Century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population. Suddenly, the crops in the fields perished because there were not enough workers to harvest them. The Chronicle of the Black Death, a firsthand account finished in 1350, states: “the shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance… there were far fewer people to work the land: peasants were able to demand better conditions and higher wages from their landlords.” Suddenly, workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. The shortage of workers led to increased wages for workers. The servants’ higher salaries contributed to economic growth, but the employers were unhappy.
At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment three times greater in 1350 than in the previous year. (Routt, 2008) “In Parliament, in 1351, the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that ‘servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons’” (Bennett, 1995).
According to this historical example, if a political party wins an election by reducing the workday to 5 hours, the lack of workers would increase the lowest workers’ salaries by two to three times per hour in one year. The minimum daily wages of workers would increase by 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. The fair market of work is the best choice for bringing justice to the economy.
The first problem with eliminating unemployment lies in the fact that employers do not want to increase workers' salaries because they profit from exploiting them. However, excessive wage demands from workers may also make the economy unsustainable, reducing employers’ interest in production and slowing down the economy.
Negative unemployment will make employers unsatisfied. Unsatisfied employers may avoid paying higher wages to workers in a fully employed society by relocating their businesses abroad. People need to understand that Western capitalism has established laws that give more freedom to capital than workers, which needs to change. At the very least, the laws must provide workers with the same rights as capital.
Any capital departure results in business closure and newly unemployed workers, bringing trouble to a domestic economy. Full employment would again require a reduction of work hours. Shortening working hours would reduce workers’ incomes in the short run. Workers would not like it. On the other hand, it is not easy for employers to organize a new production by finding new employees and new markets. The solution lies in determining the optimal length of work hours that satisfies the needs of both workers and employers.
Today, people have adopted the 8-hour workday, first suggested by Robert Owen at the beginning of the 19th Century. There is no particular reason for an eight-hour workday. Society just took it and adapted to it. Besides providing full employment, the workday length should be a function variable coordinating workers’ and employers’ needs and justice in the economy. This function should be primarily based on the full employment of people. If more workers are searching for jobs than employers are searching for workers, the work hours should be shortened. And vice versa, if employers need more workers than are available, the economic policy should consider extended work hours. The second essential principle of work regulation should be based on people's desired hours.
The length of a workday can be a potent regulator of the free-market economy and the basic point of democracy in the economy. Political parties may propose the best full-time work period for workers and employers. It would probably be one of the most critical decisions of political parties, determining whether they are elected or not. On the other hand, the work hours can also be directly determined by the work needs of workers. Every worker may express their preferred work hours, and the average value will be determined. Democratically determined work hours are supposed to create a fair work market. It will present a turning point for capitalism, making it a decent social system.
Minimum wages would no longer be needed. Full employment will increase salaries for all lower-paid workers at the expense of higher-paid workers and employers’ profits, balancing an enormous gap between people’s wages in the Western world. Besides, workers being able to purchase more will contribute to the economy’s growth. As a result, employers will profit more and employees will earn higher salaries, bringing benefits to all.
Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy
Generally, it is assumed that democratic decision-making is the most effective and acceptable form of governance. The problem is nobody knows precisely what this means. Of course, it would be ideal if people mutually agreed and created rules on an equal basis that would be valid for their collective. However, this is impossible to achieve because every society involves a vast number of decisions that cannot be made by all people, either due to a lack of interest, knowledge, or time. People also cannot do it because they can hardly agree on something and can never agree on everything.
Therefore, society accepts an indirect form of democracy, where people elect representatives to rule on their behalf. Candidates who present the best choice to the people and win the most votes at the polls receive the mandate to represent the people and govern on their behalf for a given period.
Such a democracy has many shortcomings. An elected government typically has little incentive to meet the needs of those who did not vote for it, leaving them dissatisfied. Additionally, representatives of the people are generally quite privileged and tend to represent their own interests rather than the interests of the people who voted for them. Aside from that, politicians are often elected with financial support from the wealthy, so they are compelled to follow their will if they want to remain in office. Ultimately, decisions in society are made by authorities who do not sufficiently follow the people's will. The improvements in society occur when the elite support the changes. If the elite do not support them, the changes are unlikely to occur. Such a democracy cannot be just. It is rather a fraud than a demonstration of the power of the people, by the people, for the people. People can hardly achieve their rights through democracy anywhere in the world.
Does this mean that the will of the people cannot be carried out? Can democracy not 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 to effectively implement the people’s will. To reach it, one needs to think outside the box.
***
The future of democracy should not be primarily based on voting for individuals, but rather on evaluating their actions. Individuals should get equal and independent legislative, judiciary, and executive powers to assess others. A little power in the hands of people may incentivize people to comply with the interests of others in the best possible way. This type of democracy will be straightforward, swift, and efficient. It will completely transform the foundation of social policy and foster a better society.
Let people allow everyone who, within the scope of their activity, can affect others in any way to do it freely of their own will. People do not have many choices because they cannot interfere with the freedom of activities of presidents, doctors, 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 create advantages and disadvantages for others through their actions.
People can sense whether the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or any other person bring advantages or disadvantages to them. And according to it, individuals should have the right to reward a person who creates advantages for them and punish someone who produces disadvantages for them. Such a right would direct all people to perform the most significant benefits and the least damage to others. 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 paper argues that equal rights for all individuals are the proper orientation of society. In this regard, let each person have the same power to negatively evaluate, say, three individuals who hurt them the most in any given month, and to assess positively 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 others could be publicly presented on the Internet. Counting these evaluations will demonstrate to everyone how valued they are in society. These evaluations will become at least as important to people as page visits, likes, and followers are essential 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 hard 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 who have a small direct power in society. Given that all people will have equal rights and the power to award and impose punishments on others independently of any written rules, such a democracy will present anarchy. That is the reason why this evaluation system is named democratic anarchy.
People would gain direct power in society for the first time in human history. Such power will eliminate uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. People need to understand that the privileged positions of individuals should be considered a basis for societal problems. The lack of equal human rights is why society has never been good. Democratic anarchy would direct each member of society to respect other people. People will become valuable to all people. People will be considered equal for the first time, and that will result in harmonious and constructive social relations.
Everyone will judge other people freely. In this regard, many complain that individuals may evaluate others maliciously due to 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 authorities can pull entire countries backwards. In the proposed system, such authorities would receive a large number of negative evaluations from people, which, through minor regulation, could prevent them from committing evil acts, as dictators have throughout history. Is it worthwhile to allow individuals to judge others wrongly if such “trials” would prevent significant destruction in society?
Something similar to democratic anarchy was already implemented on YouTube, where people could vote for songs or videos with a “like” or “dislike.” No more than 5% of people evaluated songs or videos inappropriately, meaning 95% valued others 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 likely prompt them to do it.
For those still skeptical about democratic anarchy, it may be implemented by presenting evaluations only to the individuals being evaluated, and not to anyone else. This would be like people listening to anonymous gossip about themselves, and everyone would be interested in hearing it. As a result, most people will try to improve their social behaviour. However, the secret results of the evaluation will not stop the worst people from continuing their bad behaviour. Then, society may decide to discourage the wrongdoers by embracing the full implementation of democratic anarchy through democratic means. And even then, if people receive more positive than negative evaluations, they may keep the result a secret from others. However, if the total assessment is negative, it will be visible to everyone, forcing individuals with a negative evaluation to improve their behaviour.
Many people, including university professors, have criticized my work, 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 intelligent or educated to have the right to vote. People will judge others based on how they feel, and everyone will be obliged to consider the consequences of their actions on others. This is what is needed to create a good society. By adopting democratic anarchy, people will appreciate other people, and that is what will bring considerable benefits to the community.
Furthermore, a system that supports people’s equal rights will develop objectivity in the community. People who receive negative evaluations will have to learn what is wrong with them, which will teach them objectivity. Objectivity will remove conflicts in society. In the future, people will likely only 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 providing, people hesitate even to discuss democratic anarchy.
Once democratic anarchy is accepted by society, it will not give much power to individuals, but their evaluations joined together will have enormous power. A person who receives a large number of negative assessments would try even harder to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Moreover, the people who receive inadequate evaluations would 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 at work, neighbours will not produce obnoxious noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all strive to please others in the best possible way. This will strip privileged powers from all individuals; it will eliminate social evils and foster a good society.
When people get accustomed to 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 someone will bring them one dollar, and each negative assessment will deduct one dollar from them. These evaluations would not significantly impact ordinary people. 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 have a profoundly positive impact on authorities responsible for making decisions in society. The higher a leader's position in society, the greater their responsibility to the people would be. For example, the US President might receive 100,000,000 negative evaluations from the American people for poor policies, lies, and aggressive actions against other countries. That would cost the president $100 million in just one month. On the other hand, the president’s supporters might not necessarily evaluate such presidents positively because they may have higher priorities for positive evaluations and allocate them elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare to implement bad policies. And if it were to happen somehow, they would leave their positions. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will no longer be authorities, but servants of the people.
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 in today’s society. However, there is a proverb that says: “Lies have short legs.” One day, the lies will be revealed, and then nobody will want to be in the place of these lying individuals because the people will surely punish them. They may receive punishments for a long time and would not dare to be immoral again.
The point of democracy is to create rules that enable people to live well. So far, the best result has been achieved through laws, but laws have not solved social problems. Democratic anarchy can effectively resolve all disputes in society by empowering the people directly. In the future, democratic anarchy may offer a more effective solution for individuals and society than laws can provide. When people have the power to enforce justice independently, they will seek justice less often in courts. The courts will start losing their importance, together with the state oppression apparatus, including the police and prisons. Once democratic anarchy is established, it will begin replacing the enormous regulation imposed by authorities. Most state regulations will become obsolete in the distant future, which means they will be relegated to history. It will release people from the alienation imposed by authorities and bring them closer to their true nature.
Besides, democratic anarchy cannot be corrupted. 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. Actually, this is probably the only moral possible because ethics can hardly be based on privileges. Privileged people cannot escape from promoting self-interests, which easily 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, enforce the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” which is capable of creating a good society. In essence, democratic anarchy has embedded 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 more willing to please them. This is the best possible outcome of democracy. The technology necessary for implementing democratic anarchy is already available. Democratic anarchy can be implemented soon, which means a significantly better society can be built quickly. Democratic anarchy will most likely fulfill all the dreams of the dreamers in the history of humankind.
***
Under pressure from democratic anarchy, government authorities will follow the needs of the people. The authorities would not dare make the most important decisions for society alone, as they can easily make mistakes that might bring about widespread wrath and numerous negative evaluations. Suppose authorities are unsure of the people’s needs. In that case, their responsibility, clearly defined by respect for people’s evaluations, will direct them to discover a love for people’s participation in strategic decision-making through referendums. In this regard, they will likely develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for direct decision-making by the people, possibly over the Internet.
The people may directly create their fiscal policy by letting each individual decide how much money they want to pay in taxes from their gross income. The sum of all the people’s expressions about taxation would determine the total amount of money allocated for collective consumption. People will not pay taxes as much as they want. They will form the total amount of money for taxes, which will be collected proportionally to their salaries. Similarly, each person can decide how to allocate their taxes. Each person will determine how much tax they would set aside to support the development of the economy, safety, education, health, infrastructure, and other collective consumption needs.
Theoretically, people can decide on collective consumption within the consumer groups as much as they want. All these shared consumption groups will have a far more significant overall impact if they are democratically allocated. Following the living experience, people will learn how much money should be collected for taxes and the best way to spend it. Thus, this spending will no longer be alienated from society; it will most efficiently follow people’s needs. Given that the new system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the army’s needs, and the army will cease to exist. In the proposed democracy, waging wars would no longer be possible.
People must make strategic decisions directly in society, such as accepting basic laws, because they create the best social policies. Nothing else can better follow the people’s interests. Professionals could make all other decisions and 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 way. People will become satisfied with such a democracy and will not allow anyone to seize it from them.
Developed Market of Work will Create Socialism
Karl Marx witnessed the enormous exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production. He fought for justice by defining capitalism and its contradictions (Marx, 1984). His principles for building communism were a visionary work of a genius. But he also made mistakes. Karl Marx is a renowned authority in the social sciences, and without acknowledging his mistakes, it would be challenging to build a better society.
Karl Marx correctly defined the exploitation of workers by analyzing the surplus value of production. However, Marx did not specify what salary workers objectively need to earn to avoid exploitation, as it is impossible to determine by any observation or calculation. Only workers' satisfaction can present the elimination of exploitation, which can be achieved through a fair labour market where jobs and workers are equally valued. However, Karl Marx believed that economic equality was the only justifiable system, which concluded that all jobs should be equally valued, making salaries uniform until, according to him, workers could consume as much as they wanted.
Marx believed that the market economy led to the exploitation of workers, so he proposed eliminating the market and replacing it with a production system organized by workers. In The Communist Manifesto, he introduced the slogan, “Proletarians of the world unite,” to take control over production and organize production through the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marx, 1970). However, Karl Marx did not define how this economy was supposed to work. He believed that workers would plan and organize production to satisfy their needs.
Production organized by workers required social ownership of the means of production. According to Marx, public 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 referred to the first phase of social ownership of the means of production as “the lower stage of communism.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin established the principle of the lower stage of communism as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" (Lenin, 2017), which Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin named socialism. Socialism was intended to liberate workers from capitalist exploitation and establish a just society.
Considering that capitalists would never let workers decide about their own capital, Karl Marx proposed in The Communist Manifesto a revolutionary takeover of private property as a solution to building a good society (Marx, 1983). He justified revolution and the confiscation of private property by the fact that capitalists had built their capital on exploiting workers, which is generally true to some extent. Nevertheless, some people invest years in constructing machines that replace many workers. Should they not have more say and earn more than other workers? Marxian socialists have not found it acceptable, advocating for the equality of people. However, wage inequality is 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 (Schaff, 1973). Still, they have never explained how the social revolution can be performed peacefully. This paper defines the concept of a peaceful socialist revolution for the first time. Marxian revolutionaries have been building socialism primarily through the use of force. Although violent revolutions may replace a particular social injustice, they have always been replaced by another. 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 bear responsibility for the production with their capital, which is the accumulated value of past work. Capital made capitalists very responsible in the production processes. By denying the significance of past work, socialism has lacked a successful method for paying workers' responsibility in production processes. Furthermore, Marx recognized that removing the market economy would eliminate productivity indicators, so he called upon workers' 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 needed for communism would be capable of providing a responsible society, and he was right about this. He also believed that people would develop a conscience in their own 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, intensifying people's oppression and producing troubles for society rather than advantages. The authoritarian revolutionary oppression of people generates fear, which cannot develop people's consciences, and a better society can hardly be built. Release from fear of authorities usually creates irresponsible narcissism in people, causing societal problems. Criminals would always find an excuse for whatever crime they commit. Calling for the conscience of non-conscious people is illusory. Only the freedom of responsible individuals can shape people’s consciences, and, according to the author of this paper, only equal human rights can provide it.
Marx's assumption that an economy controlled by the proletariat would successfully cater to people's needs was doomed from the beginning because no economy could satisfy the desires of greedy individuals. 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 an ideal democracy, people can hardly agree on anything. Workers have never had efficient control of production through their "dictatorship." The most developed form of self-management production was established in socialist Yugoslavia, where production decisions were based on the approval of workers through their participation in worker councils. In practice, such decision-making was time-consuming, and if production failed, it relieved managers of their responsibilities. “It deteriorated production efficiency and led to economic disaster” (Liotta, 2001). There is no better production choice than selecting the best workers, including managers, for every job post, allowing them to produce to the best of their abilities while holding them highly responsible to society for their actions. This paper elaborates on it.
Marx's idea of a democratically planned economy was noble and correct, but he lacked evidence from a previous model to support its feasibility, nor did he have a clear idea of how it could work. Unfortunately, Marxists still lack it. Socialism has faced a significant challenge in determining how to establish a social policy that satisfies people's needs. By abandoning the market economy, socialism has lost efficient measures for selecting productive workers and managers to achieve prosperous production. As a result, the revolutionary authorities had to control production to ensure that such an economy produced anything. Thus, the socialist revolutions replaced experienced entrepreneurs with inexperienced revolutionaries who could not provide a more successful organization of production than capitalism.
By abandoning the market economy, the socialist authorities had no choice but to plan society's essential production. For example, they planned how many tons of wheat they needed to feed people. They were relatively successful in planning for the state's needs. They were pretty capable of developing science. However, individual needs were barely considered because socialist leaders were unable to gather them. The authorities have also faced difficulties in managing more complex production processes from a single center. 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 consumption, Karl Marx replaced the market value of work with the labour theory of value, which he accepted from Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and adapted it to his own philosophy. According to it, "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 labour value because Marx's definition does not differentiate between productive and non-productive work, responsible and irresponsible work, challenging and easy work. Karl Marx probably assumed that the equality of workers would involve their optimal effort in producing commodities; however, this did not occur.
Socialism worked hard to bring economic justice to society. It eliminated unemployment by providing the necessary right to work. Everyone got a job, even though their work did not contribute enough to their communities. Socialists balanced salaries regardless of work positions, productivity, effort, and responsibilities, which helped build a more stable and 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 those of managers. The socialist economy has not had enough opportunities to develop.
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 a market economy. The result of the socialist economy was poor.
Ultimately, socialism did not eliminate classes as Marx had envisioned. 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; instead, they tried to get as close as possible to the political elite, as it gave them privileged power in society. This brought corruption, along with all its negative consequences, which ultimately 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 people's dissatisfaction with 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 created as a noble attempt to form a human society, but it ultimately failed. Karl Marx did not have sufficient data to build socialism and communism, so he wrote relatively little about it. However, his followers have created socialism by oppressing people, making them unable to bring about favourable results. No science could fix problems originating from a lack of human rights. As a result, socialism failed.
The primary question regarding the Marxist economy is why Marx did not advocate for shorter work hours to increase workers' salaries and reduce or eliminate worker exploitation. Marx most likely gave up on it because he witnessed firsthand how difficult it was to reach an agreement between employers and workers. However, reducing or eliminating exploitation through shorter work hours should have been revealed and well disseminated, regardless of how difficult it was to implement. Today, striving 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. Still, no method to achieve this goal has been successfully developed. The political Left has attempted to challenge capitalism by developing cooperatives that promote worker collaboration in decision-making processes. Recognizing that this idea is problematic because workers are diverse and have varying needs, reaching agreements on production matters proves 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 paper aims to define it.
***
People generally do not think that the problems of the market economy are primarily based on the underdevelopment of the market economy. However, the author of this paper argues that the main problem of today’s market economy is not too much market, but rather, not enough market.
Workers in capitalism have jobs protected by laws and unions; jobs in capitalism are privileged, though to a lesser extent than in socialism. A more productive worker cannot apply for a work position already occupied by another worker. That is why the division of work in capitalism cannot efficiently allocate labour and achieve maximum productivity. One should protect the existence of workers, not jobs. A better future for humankind requires that workers become equal subjects in the production process. This will be achieved when all the workers have equal opportunities to choose any job they want in public companies. Society needs to establish a standard for selecting workers. History has already shown that there is no more socially justified employment principle than hiring the best available worker for each job position.
Capitalism taught people to love competition and that winning brings enormous satisfaction. As a result, people do not hesitate to exert any effort to express themselves. So, why wouldn't society open competitions for every public workplace at any time? It sounds impossible because such a division of labour never existed. However, its realization is just a technical problem and will bring enormous benefits to society. To achieve such an economic system, people need to find an efficient way to evaluate work productivity, define job responsibilities, and harmonize rewards for work at any time. In summary, the workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability and demand the lowest salary should get any public job at any time. It would be nothing but a developed market of work. However, the work market will require time to develop enough and be accepted by people.
The work competition in the market will incentivize workers much more than capitalism can through wages. The existence of workers would never be endangered because every worker can find a job in a fully employed environment. It would establish such a strong responsibility that no one would dare offer work proposals they could not meet. The market will also regulate workers’ salaries most objectively. The living standards for all people may increase in an unprecedented way. People may be pleased with living in such a system. Only this shall be called socialism. The following text defines the labour division of socialism.
There is no fairer or better division of labour than a competition among workers based on their labour productivity in any workplace at any time. Productivity would be measured by the amount of money earned, the quantity and quality of goods produced, or by rating workers’ productivity based on consumer feedback. A worker who offers higher profits, more manufactured goods, a better, cleaner and cheaper production will get the desired job. Comparing the productivity of workers may be complex, but it can also be very simple. Democratic anarchy will make it straightforward.
Permanently open work competition among workers has never existed because nobody believed it was possible, and did not invest any effort into developing such an idea. However, the author of this paper has considered the potential problems that an open work competition might pose to society and has proposed solutions to address these issues. Once people consider such a division of labour, it will open the possibility for significant economic and social improvement.
Of course, such a division of work will only relate to public companies, because if it were applied to private enterprises, it would practically mean a seizure of private property. Private companies will continue their businesses as they do today. It will be necessary to regulate and democratically accept a new division of labour in public companies by law. One day, the proposed division of work will be accepted because the principles of such a division of labour are natural, just, and the most productive.
A worker who offers the highest productivity for any workplace at any time immediately becomes a prime candidate for that position, regardless of whether the position is occupied or not. If there are already employed workers at such workplaces who do not want to leave their jobs, they would have to accept the competitors’ productivity, and in that case, they would continue to hold their work positions. If they cannot take on the new responsibilities or do not want them, they will immediately vacate the workplace and leave it to the competitor.
The existential security of workers is necessary as a condition of societal stability, and therefore, society should guarantee it. In the proposed system, all workers will automatically be economically secure after leaving any job. Losing a job will not create income stress because workers can quickly find new work in a full-employment environment. Such security will remove the great fear of unemployment that is prevalent around the world. Capitalism finds its primary motivation for work in the fear of workers’ economic survival, so it does not provide sufficient financial security to the people. Socialism will inspire work through the free choice of job selection and work satisfaction.
The advantages of such a division of work will be enormous. The best worker in every workplace ensures maximum productivity for companies, satisfying consumers’ needs most efficiently. Thus, such a division of labour will find its justification. The labour market will allow people to choose jobs they love more. They will enjoy work far more than they do today. Work will become a direct value for itself.
Furthermore, the open labour market will eliminate privileges. Today, people might experience a loss of privileges as a significant disadvantage. However, it should be said that privileges are one of the leading causes of societal problems. Eliminating privileges means increasing productivity and reducing, if not removing, corruption and immorality in the community. With time, people will realize that the loss of privileges would considerably increase the possibility of finding work that enhances workers’ productive power. The power of being develops creativity and brings great and stable satisfaction that privileges could not achieve. The proposed socialist labour market would bring significant benefits to society.
***
The author of this paper has developed Marx’s simplified labour theory of values by expanding workers’ compensation in production processes to include necessary functions, which can define values that increase productivity and promote justice in the economy. Every produced good consists of the values of past and current work. Therefore, workers’ compensation should be based on their past and current contributions to the production processes.
The value of the current work should present the advantages and disadvantages the work brings to a worker compared to other jobs. Let’s say the average value and cost of the current work is 1. For example, a worker who is 10% more interested in a position than the average job may request a value of 0.9 for the current work price to be more competitive. It will result in earning 10% less than in an average job. However, a better chance of getting a job will be given to a worker who demands the lowest price for the current work. The justification for accepting the lowest bid is that the job is most convenient for the worker and cheapest for society. The cost of ongoing work will be one of the factors that determines the salaries of workers. In this regard, the labour market will offer suitable jobs at relatively lower wages, and less desirable positions will be compensated with higher payments. A developed work market will establish an objective price for current work, just as the market for goods does, and workers will be satisfied with their earnings. Unions as mediators in determining incomes will no longer be required.
The past work value of workers presents how much workers have contributed to creating the values society possesses. In capitalism, more valuable past work produces more wealth, so wealth presents the value of past work. But capitalism does not recognize other social values. For example, giving birth, being born, and growing into a productive person are the highest scopes of value that people may produce, and people must recognize them as values of past work. Such values are priceless, so they cannot be objectively determined; however, they may be formed through arbitration in the best interest of all people. Similarly, society has established punishment for murder that has nothing to do with objectivity, but it is beneficial because it prevents killings.
Assigning the value of past work to human beings will allow people to receive a basic income right from birth. Everything people do from birth should be accepted as work. The price of the current work of unemployed people should be adjusted to ensure everyone receives a minimum income as a guarantee for a secure existence. It will be automatically created from the taxes paid by employed individuals. Such an idea has already been propagated by the name Universal Basic Income.
The value of past work will also include the human and social improvements people create. It will motivate people to build upon these values more, bringing more benefits to their societies. On the other hand, people will also be held responsible for any damage they cause to society with the value of their past work. For example, every crime may be re-evaluated based on the past work value of the individuals involved. The criminal law will need to recalculate criminals' prison sentences by deducting their past work values proportionally to the crimes they have committed. It would be more effective for criminals to lose past work values than to serve prison sentences, and the punishment will be much more humane.
The value of past work will be a very efficient tool for being held responsible in society. It will be highly beneficial and necessary for establishing the progress of humanity. The arbitration for the values of past work should be regulated by the law and democratically accepted by the people. This is a challenging task, and it is likely the main reason the socialist division of labour cannot be implemented soon.
Let’s assume that the average past work value is 100,000 points while the average current work value is 1. The multiplication of these amounts will establish the objective workers’ labour value or labour cost. That means the average salary of workers will be 100,000 money units. The average value of past work may be adjusted to GBP per capita, while the average value of current work may be adjusted to 1, adjusting salaries to the values of the goods and services produced.
However, only the market can establish objective prices of commodities. If a company achieves a higher revenue on the market than its workers demand for their labour, it will present a surplus value. As a result, the workers in those companies would earn more money than they requested. Conversely, in companies that incur a deficit in making money on the market, workers would receive lower wages than they asked for, even though they achieve the productivity offered. To avoid competition for work in more profitable public companies, the more profitable public companies will surrender the surplus values they received to those public companies that achieve shortage values on the market.
The overflow of public companies’ surplus values to those who realize the market shortage would prevent a disturbance of equilibrium in the work division. As a result, everyone will earn as much as they desire to realize the offered productivity. Thus, the labour market will balance employment across all public companies, regardless of the companies’ revenues resulting from market inconsistencies. The market is the best gift Mother Nature gives to the economy, capable of bringing justice and stability to the production processes. Economic development will come from people's conscious decisions to allocate their tax money for investments in production.
The system would have no meaning without efficiently regulating workers’ responsibilities in production processes. In the developed work market, workers may unrealistically increase their productivity offers to get their desired jobs. Such irresponsibility may result in the collapse of the economic system. Today, for example, politicians do precisely that, which is one of the leading causes of people’s disappointment and immorality in society.
The proposed socialist economy will utilize workers’ past work values to establish their responsibility in the production process. This is what socialism has lacked, resulting in insufficient responsibility and inefficient production. Workers would guarantee the productivity they propose by the value of their past work. If workers do not meet the proposed productivity standards, they will bear the responsibility of losing their past work values.
The workers will numerically determine the scope of their responsibilities in the production processes of public companies. Let’s say the average responsibility has a value of 1. The higher the accountabilities workers offer for the desired workplaces, the greater their right to work in those workplaces. If the company’s revenue increases, the workers in publicly owned companies will share the profit proportionally to the predetermined responsibilities they propose for their work. Such a gain will be expressed in the value of the past work. And vice versa, if a company loses money, workers who propose greater responsibility for their work will realize more significant losses in their past work values.
Once the profit or loss of the company is identified and the responsibilities of workers are numerically determined, awarding and punishing workers based on the values of their past work is automatic. In addition, workers will be held accountable for their performance through democratic anarchy. One can guess how powerful democratic anarchy will be when people get equal authority to award and punish others with a tiny value that reflects their past work.
The following fictional examples illustrate how the work division in socialism would work: A baker produces 1,000 loaves of bread daily, establishing the standard baking productivity with a coefficient value of 1. Next, he values his work at a value of 1 (assuming this is an average work price). Finally, he takes responsibility for his productivity at a value of 1 (assuming this is an average responsibility for all jobs). Then, a new baker who wants to take the position of the existing baker needs to offer the productivity of a value greater than 1, or needs to request a lower price for the current work, which would be a value less than 1, or needs to offer higher responsibility, which will be a value greater than 1. If a new baker proposes a better work offer than the existing one, who cannot or does not want to meet it, the new baker gets the job.
Establishing work competition for workers can be challenging because comparing different production values may sometimes make choosing the best work offer a demanding task. Then, the work productivity of a new baker should be evaluated, which would require assessing the quantity and quality of the bread produced. If the offered productivity is not realized, disputes are possible and finding solutions may be problematic. For example, if the supplied ingredients of bread are not satisfactory, it may affect the realized productivity of the baker, for which he might not be responsible. Finally, since the job description is usually more complex than presented in this example, the workers might spend a lot of time resolving such issues, reducing the time to work. Nobel laureate Ronald Coase stated that resolving such an issue would require a higher cost than economically justified (Coase, 1937). He may be correct, but open competition among workers might still yield superior productivity compared to capitalism.
However, democratic anarchy may be able to completely resolve such a problem. By accepting democratic anarchy, workers will no longer need to offer their productivity; it will be assumed that their productivity must be equal to or better than that of the replaced worker. The work price is much simpler to determine than productivity and will be standardized in the same way prices of goods are standardized on the market today. Practically, the highest responsibility offered by any worker for any job will be the main, if not the only requirement for getting the job. The fine-tuning of workers' responsibility will be determined through democratic anarchy by the evaluations made by coworkers or customers. The following paragraphs will present what this means.
The baker gets the job by offering work responsibility at 1.2. The evaluations of people will be limited, so if the baker does not receive any evaluations, the value of his past work will not change. However, if the baker receives two negative evaluations from people for whatever reason, he will lose 2.4 points from the value of his past work. Such responsibility will permanently reduce his salary by 2.4 money units. That means the baker will take high responsibility for everything connected to the bread he produces. He will also bear the same responsibility if negatively evaluated for anything he does to society outside of bread production. On the other hand, suppose a baker makes customers very satisfied with the bread he produces, then he may expect positive evaluations, which will permanently increase his salary. The impact of the assessments may be reduced, for example, by a hundred times, and yet they will still encourage people to behave responsibly.
The same applies to every job. The election campaign for a country's president will last as long as the candidates register the values of their responsibilities for the president's position. This will also represent the election process, as the highest bid will secure the job. If life in a country is ordinary, the president might not receive any evaluation. If the standard of living deteriorates for any reason, people might give their presidents negative assessments because they will be considered the most responsible for the country's decline. They may receive millions of negative evaluations from people. Let’s assume a president offers responsibility in the value of 1.6 to get the job; if they get one million negative evaluations, they will lose 1,600,000 points that represent the value of their past work. If the president possesses a lesser value of past work, they will drop into a negative value—debt. In this case, they should pay the penalty to the economy instead of earning a salary. Considering that people would not be able to pay it, the president will receive a minimum wage as long as they do not escape the debt. Of course, if the president significantly improves social life, they will be well rewarded by the positive evaluations they receive from the people.
Those who cannot stand the heat will stay out of the kitchen. Socialism will develop such a significant responsibility of the workers for their jobs that they will not dare apply for jobs they are not qualified for. However, if they choose to apply, they will suffer consequences for performing poorly. Their responsibility may be very painful and force them to resign quickly. Or, even better, they might search for replacements to escape the large losses in past work value.
In practice, work replacements would hardly exist without agreements among workers. When workers take jobs from previous workers, the previous workers are considered to have performed the necessary productivity and would still profit from it, even when they are replaced and do not contribute to such productivity. The new workers who force previous ones to leave will have to maintain the productivity of their predecessors, but will profit only from the increased productivity. Besides, one should expect that replacing workers without an agreement would probably make the replaced workers dissatisfied. They will be able to retaliate by negatively evaluating their replacements through democratic anarchy. Their coworkers and friends may offer them support. Therefore, workers who want to replace existing ones would most likely negotiate for better conditions to get the jobs. Thus, one may expect the replacement of workers without negotiations only if the new workers bring noticeably higher productivity.
Leaders will have great operational power, but people may still control them before making executive decisions. For example, suppose company managers want to increase production through substantial investments. Then, they must be supported by workers, as the increase in productivity will bring new responsibilities to them. The workers will have the right to modify the values of accepted responsibilities in response to the new managers' proposals. If they reduce their responsibilities, it might mean they are not confident in the changes managers propose, which might postpone or block a new production. Managers will have to persuade workers to accept their proposals by explaining the production risks and benefits.
Substantial responsibility in the production process will teach workers to establish mutual relations that emphasize cooperation more than competition. However, every job will still find the best worker on the market the same way every good finds the best purchaser today. Those who know how to improve production and society will no longer be prevented from doing so. Additionally, workers and the general public will be satisfied. Thus, the open work market will bring the most outstanding contribution to the development of the economy and society.
Considering that workers will not dare apply for jobs they are not qualified for, there is no need to condition anyone’s employment on the possession of diplomas. Firstly, a degree does not guarantee workers' skills or production. Secondly, conditioning work with diplomas unnecessarily restricts access to desired jobs. The limitation of employment possibilities with the possession of degrees has evolved to the absurdity of bureaucratically restricting the freedom to choose work to a vast extent. Besides, the enormous amount of knowledge the education system imposes on students usually has no connection with people’s professions. It serves authorities to ensure the survival of an authoritarian system, presenting an unnecessary burden that alienates students from objective reality. Additionally, alienated individuals are unable to address social problems and contribute to societal improvement. In this regard, it is necessary to remove education as a bureaucratic requirement for having the right to work. This still means that professional education will be unquestionably necessary and welcome, but not required for employment, because knowledge can be acquired independently as well as through practice.
***
Some regions may accept the open work competition one day, because no economy can be more productive than one where the best available worker is assigned to each job. Under the competitive pressures of public companies, private company owners will strive to increase their productivity, just as public companies do. However, they could not go far enough because they lacked the operational capabilities to compete with public companies. Given that workers in private companies do not have the same level of freedom as those in public companies and do not share in the profits, they will be less interested in working for private companies. By being less productive than public companies, private company owners will be encouraged to join public companies.
Given that the saturated market does not provide substantial profits, which is the final result of every production, the owners of private companies will likely join public companies. Companies’ owners will get the equivalent value of past work in exchange for their firms. It will proportionately increase their incomes in public companies.
Over time, one can expect all regional companies to merge into a single public company, operating similarly to large corporations. The company will have a central leadership that will effectively coordinate work. Managers will remain the best option for organizing the production of public companies, and the new system will hold them highly responsible for making decisions, ensuring efficient production. Managers will open job positions where they are most needed and close those that are not needed enough. Such an organization of the economy will decrease market competition between companies. Still, it will ensure high production efficiency by lowering the competitive level from companies to individual jobs.
The high responsibility the proposed work division requires from workers will force manufacturers to avoid economic losses in an unpredictable market by organizing production according to consumers’ demands. People will democratically determine the tax rate and directly allocate the tax fund for various consumer groups of collective consumption. Furthermore, individual consumers will be increasingly required to order their expensive needs in advance. Competitive production based on consumer orders presents a market economy that is democratically planned. Such an economy should be considered the most stable production possible. Information technology can abet such a complex production to operate efficiently, which Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did not have.
Democratic anarchy is all the social power that may remain in socialism. Once equal rights are fully established, people will have no reason to commit crimes. Crime will be eliminated. Minor offences may remain and be resolved through democratic anarchy. Once equal human rights are established, police, courts, and prisons as symbols of authoritarian government will become obsolete and go down in history. This will also make states go down in history.
The complete implementation of equal human rights in the economy should be referred to as socialism. Nothing else deserves this name. Socialism will emerge spontaneously as the ultimate consequence of equal human rights. It will not replace capitalism as Karl Marx believed; it will upgrade it.
Building socialism is a much more complicated task than reforming capitalism. The author of this paper does not claim that his socialist solution is final because his ideas open up a spectrum of possibilities. It is hard to choose the best solutions without practice. However, he is confident that social scientists will further develop the best socialist choices through their experience based on the theory of equal human rights. The author believes that the development of socialism will eliminate social evils and create a bright future that surpasses the wildest dreams of today.
Communism Should Be Considered the Best Social System
Karl Marx established 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. He defined communism as “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” (Marx, 1970). 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 ultimately 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 disappointment.
The primary condition for building socialism and communism is 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 ultimately did not, as it was challenging for all people to 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 encountered such difficulties that he ultimately relinquished the effort and sought to exert control over people (Lenin, 2017). The rest of the socialist leaders followed suit. It was precisely where everything went wrong with socialism and communism.
***
Hopefully, this paper has convincingly presented the third natural law of society: establishing equal human rights fosters constructive and harmonious social relations, thereby making people satisfied with their lives. If so, people would be willing to build socialism. To achieve communism, people must voluntarily allocate all their income to taxes. Then, all goods and services will be available free of charge to everyone. Technically speaking, if some people refuse to allocate all their gross salaries for taxes, everyone will still receive some income, and some goods and services will still be charged. This would still be socialism and not communism.
Most people believe that communism is not possible to realize due to the weaknesses of human nature. This is false. Money is an absolute necessity in a society that is scarcely supplied. The wealthy elite have inflated the value of money far beyond its objective worth because, by possessing it, while others do not, they gain power over those who do not.
Socialism will significantly change this. It will increase production and workers’ salaries, bringing abundant production and consumption available to everyone. It will bring stability and justice to the production and distribution process. Each work position will be theoretically available to everyone at any time. The market of work 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 influence of others. They are not even supposed to compare themselves with others because it alienates them from their own nature. Alienation has put people on the wrong path, on which they cannot satisfy their needs, bringing harmful consequences. As a result, people today live in alienated societies, facing dissatisfaction, antagonism, and destructive relationships.
Equal human rights will rid people of authoritative pressure and allow them to follow their interests. Such experiences will teach people to critically consider the influences of others. It will demystify alienated needs, values, and actions imposed by authorities throughout the history of humankind. It will help people stay closer to nature. As a result, people will form objective needs that they may satisfy, and this 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 recognize the first natural law of society: people who consistently meet their needs foster 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.
By accepting society’s natural laws, people should understand that work itself is a great value; individual to individual is a prime value, while goods will lose their alienated value. Values of work and production abundance will reduce the importance of money. One day, receiving good evaluations from others may become more important than earning money. Having desired jobs should also become more important than earning money. Today, some jobs are more attractive to people than money, but this is an exception. A developed work market will make all jobs equally attractive, and the process of disalienation might make jobs more desirable than earning money.
People would also understand that collective consumption is the most rational consumption. 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 the most efficient, stable, and rational democratically planned economy. This is communism, most likely the best social system possible, which Karl Marx desired but could not define—a flourishing society. In communism, people will be free to pursue their passions and indulge in activities such as work, science, philosophy, culture, the arts, sports, entertainment, and relaxation through enjoyable pursuits.
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 critical point of an individual’s creation 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.
Conclusion
History teaches that authoritarian social systems often produce social problems, while social systems that grant people more rights tend to create more equitable and better societies. This should be enough to conclude that the full implementation of equal human rights would create the best social system possible. Nevertheless, authorities prevent the knowledge of equal human rights to keep their social privileges. Social life was always based on generating individual power over people instead of on equal human rights. As a result, people cannot reach social prosperity.
According to the author of this paper, equal human rights can help solve social problems and provide the best possible life 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 like the result. This paper aims to convince readers that people can achieve more significant societal progress by implementing equal human rights. Nothing more is needed to build a bright future for humankind, and nothing less can make it. Equal human rights are one of the greatest inventions of all time. Opening a public discussion about equal human rights is essential for building a bright future for humankind.
References:
Bennett, M. (1995). The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History. New South Wales: Australian Journal of Law and Society (Vol. 11, p 197). http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlLawSoc/1995/1.pdf
Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm, Economica, Wiley Online Library, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
Lenin, V. I. (2017.) The State and Revolution, 1917. New Delhi: Bahri Publication.
Liotta, P.H. (2001) Paradigm Lost: Yugoslav Self-Management and the Economics of Disaster, OpenEdition Journals VOL. V, N° 1-2, 2001, https://doi.org/10.4000/balkanologie.681
Marx, K. (1970) Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, K. (1983). The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin.
Marx, K. (1984) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, 1867. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Moffatt, M. (2020). Why 0% Unemployment Isn’t Actually a Good Thing. ThoughtCo, thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-means-1147540
Newton, I. (2006) Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 1687. [Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy]. New York: Daniel Adee.
Routt, D. (2008). The Economic Impact of the Black Death. Economic History Association EH.Net Encyclopedia. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/.
Schaff, A. (1973). Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence, Journal of the History of Ideas,
University of Pennsylvania Press, (Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 263-270).