Humanism for Dummies
Nobody knows what a good society is actually supposed to look like. We are all dummies in it. I have refused to be the dummy and, therefore, have tried hard to define a human society.
Humanism necessarily requires freedom. A free person is supposed to decide on everything he wants, but his exercise of freedom must not deprive other individuals of their liberties. Freedom gives people the choice to choose their needs and to satisfy them. Freedom fulfils people’s reason for being and gives them a chance to be happy.
Are we free?
The level of freedom depends on society's development. Our freedom is not necessarily low today, but it is not developed enough either. Politically, our liberty ends after we vote for representatives in councils, assemblies, or parliaments. Once they are elected, authorities tend not to like democracy. The chosen people may prevent us from our freedom, make us powerless and unhappy, and exploit us. We can do nothing to oppose them except wait years for the next elections to replace them.
Worse still, those who rule society become models for all other authorities. As a result, our bosses, teachers, parents, and other authorities take power in their respective fields. Ruling power brings great convenience, so men work hard to gain control or influence over others. Everyone achieves varying degrees of success in this field. They all prevent others from developing freely. In such a society, people tend to hate each other, leading to destructive relationships within the community. I have suffered a lot from these kinds of problems, which is why I have decided to find a solution that brings people freedom.
May direct democracy give a satisfactory solution?
Some people propose that we skip authorities and, with the help of computer technology, reach consensus and/or make direct decisions about all the issues concerning our interests. Reaching consensus and direct democracy are good ideas, but they cannot succeed on their own. First, this kind of decision-making is complex and very time-consuming, making it hard to achieve a satisfactory result. Secondly, influential people do not like democracy and especially not a direct democracy; therefore, they would find a solution to prevent it. Third, making decisions requires a certain level of knowledge, and one cannot expect everyone to have it. Also, each society needs to make a practically unlimited number of decisions, and no one has enough time, nor does anyone probably want to participate in all of them. Besides that, democracy is not a perfect solution because it prioritizes the wishes of the majority over the needs of the minority, which may result in taking freedom away from the opposition. Finally, even if democracy solves all these problems, no theory can effectively protect individuals in society from the ruling power of others.
So what are we going to do?
Let’s leave the right to make decisions to the authorities when they must. They may also freely increase their responsibilities, but let’s ensure they are directly responsible for their actions towards everyone at all times.
How?
Give each person an equal right to evaluate others. This right will empower each person to provide one positive and one negative evaluation (or more), let’s say, monthly. That means people will evaluate only the behaviour of the best and worst person, in their opinion. Let each positive assessment automatically bring some award to the positively assessed person, and let any negative assessment result in the same form of punishment. The people will directly determine the value of these awards and fines. We may assume that the evaluation power is one dollar, but it could be smaller or larger.
What would the evaluation bring to society?
There would be no rules about how people evaluate others, so it would create a kind of anarchy. The assessment would require people to respect each other and be very careful, no matter what they are doing. It would direct each member of society to create the maximum possible advantages for the community and eliminate all forms of disadvantage. In other words, nobody would dare to oppress others anymore or prevent them from enjoying their freedom. That will make us human. Today, we do not evaluate humanity, which is why we do not have it. When we start to assess humanity, humanity will become a recognized value, and society will become significantly better. This is quite simple.
The number of evaluations individuals give to others will be limited. Meaning, ordinary people would not be evaluated much. Most assessments would go to people with extraordinarily positive or negative behaviour and to authorities. That would force authorities to make the best possible decisions for society. The higher authorities would receive more evaluations, and that would make them more responsible. Presidents of countries may, for example, receive millions of positive and negative assessments each month, which could result in them gaining or having to pay millions of dollars monthly because of their work. That would, for the first time, really establish their responsibilities before the people. That will also make authorities start loving democracy. From then on, they will undoubtedly ask the people what they want and make decisions to meet their needs. They would even work hard to build consensus among the people on decisions that affect their interests. Authorities who cannot make good choices would leave their positions quickly, and only the best would remain. The evaluations will bring considerable benefits to society and a much better future for mankind.
Can we evaluate other people?
I believe people can generally make sound judgments about others and evaluate them objectively. Life in such an environment will teach everyone to be more objective. However, dear reader, you may be concerned about others' ability to evaluate you objectively. In such a case, the awards and penalties of evaluations may be reduced or eliminated. Even a formal assessment might bring good results. Besides, I believe you, dear reader, would like to evaluate other people, but you cannot expect that if you do not give them a chance to assess you. We all need to sacrifice a little to get much, much more. When the system, by its practice, wins your confidence in the evaluation, then the influence of assessments may grow, and that would bring excellent results.
What’s wrong with the division of work today?
I have had many problems with today’s established principles of work division. As a young man, I believed I could create “miracles” with my work, but I did not get a chance to show it. I was especially disappointed with the publicly owned companies that dominated the country I lived in then. Public companies were supposed to follow the people's interests, but they weren't successful at it. I asked myself why only presidents of countries face democratic approval for their work at elections every couple of years, and most other public workers do not. Does this mean workers in public companies can be privileged and unproductive authorities in their posts?
Work in publicly owned companies is generally more pleasant than in private companies. It also provides a more decent and secure income and privileges than jobs in private companies. Once taken, such work placements are largely protected, and unless they are vacant, they cannot be reassigned to others. That is unfair to people who are unemployed and to those who have poor jobs. Freedom to choose work is underdeveloped; it barely exists. Most people spend almost one-third of their lives doing jobs they dislike because they lack other choices. The lack of freedom to choose work is what really makes our lives miserable. Also, privileged positions often don't challenge workers enough, so they get bored. As a result, they become less productive, causing losses for society as a whole. What is even worse, privileged work positions are starting points of oppression inside society and nests for all kinds of corruption, which bring huge negativity to society.
So what is the solution?
The evaluation system mentioned above will largely help solve these problems in the division of work. Additionally, it will be necessary to increase worker mobility and opportunities to change jobs. Each person should have the opportunity not only to work but also to work in what they like. The first can be accomplished by shortening work hours in proportion to the unemployment rate. The second can be realized by opening the competition for each public work post at all times. Each job in publicly owned companies should go to the worker who proposes the best productivity at any time. It sounds impossible, and I have received such comments since the beginning of my work, but nothing is impossible here; it’s only about creating a sound system.
Well, that measure requires many more income securities than any existing system offers. Everyone would receive some income. Income levels would depend on the value of past work, the price of present work, productivity achieved, and society's needs. In addition to income, we would need clear regulations for work productivity and responsibilities that everyone could accept. To achieve this goal, we need to build an entirely new economy.
What would we get?
Workers would be able to get the jobs they like. That would give them significant benefits from work itself. This would make work a value in itself, a considerable benefit that is almost non-existent today.
Also, that kind of division of labour will bring the best production performance possible, which capitalist production cannot achieve. Private companies would lose the productivity battle with public ones and, therefore, would be forced to withdraw. The owners of private means of production will be justly compensated for their ownership so that they will join the public system of production voluntarily.
If production productivity is limited, the worker who asks for a lower price for the current work will get the job. The cost of the current work is one factor that determines income levels. Better jobs will lower the price of current work, resulting in more moderate incomes, and vice versa. The market price of the current work will ensure fairness in production and distribution. All workers will be satisfied with their earnings, and all jobs will become equally desirable. Isn’t such a benefit unthinkable today?
Last but not least, the new system will establish substantial work responsibilities for workers, ensuring that relationships in the production process are based on a high level of cooperation. This will help establish harmonious relations in society.
What would we lose?
We would lose the chance to keep our work positions forever, but we would no longer fear for our economic survival. In the new system, there would not be an objective need to keep work positions forever. This is mainly an alienated narcissistic need. Narcissism in us is the prime creator of unhappiness and destructiveness in the developed world. The new system will help us realize this, and the values it offers will liberate us from narcissistic opinions about our privileged positions. That would release us from the unhappiness and destructiveness we might carry within ourselves and, therefore, from unhappiness and destructiveness in society. That is indeed worth losing.
The system will release us from oppression inside society, from all kinds of corruption, and from all of the negativities they bring. It will also free us from the belief that happiness is elsewhere, which is very prevalent in societies that lack enough freedom. It will show us that happiness lies within ourselves and teach us how to find and control it.
Why wouldn’t we accept these ideas?
The political and economic model described above would improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly greater advantages to all members of society. In general, this system will free people from authoritative pressure and let them pursue their own interests while encouraging mutual respect. Such experiences will demystify the values imposed by authorities and teach people to live according to their true nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristic of present-day society.
Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs based on the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the final prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their demands are not destructive. The proposed system promises a beautiful life and natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.
The new ideas will turn everything you are used to in your life upside down, and that certainly brings the acceptance problem. However, there is no reason to refuse these ideas due to an inability to understand the scope of benefits they will bring to everyone, nor out of fear stemming from this misunderstanding. From the beginning, I was confident these simple ideas would one day completely change the world and make Paradise on Earth. To prove it, I have been developing these ideas for the last 20 years. The system I have finally created is the sine qua non for humankind's great future. It is presented in the 131-page book, “The Humanism”, available free of charge here. The book clearly shows humanity's bright future, and you should read it.