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 the worker who offers higher productivity, more responsibility, and demands a lower wage. It is nothing but a developed work market open at all times. Such an economy cannot be realized soon, but once people establish it, the burdens and benefits of living will be justly distributed, forming a just economy. Additionally, no company can be more productive than one where each job is assigned to the best available worker. Once people establish it, private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies, sending capitalism down in history. This paper presents a significant socioeconomic opportunity to build good socialism.
The Developed Market of Work in Socialism
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. Developing a market economy is necessary to fully implement equal human rights, which is essential for establishing a good society.
Workers in capitalism have jobs protected by laws and unions, so employment in capitalism is relatively privileged, though to a lesser extent than in socialism. A more productive worker cannot apply for a position already occupied by another worker. That is why the division of labour in capitalism cannot achieve the maximum possible productivity. One should protect the existence of workers, not jobs.
The economy's future requires that workers become equal partners in the production process. This will be achieved when all the workers have equal opportunities to choose any public job they want at any given time. 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 that can be solved, benefiting society enormously.
To achieve such an economic system, it is necessary to define an efficient way to evaluate work productivity and responsibility, and to harmonize work rewards consistently. In summary, workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability, and demand the lowest work price, should be given 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.
Competition in the market will incentivize workers much more than capitalism can through wages alone. 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 to offer work proposals they could not meet. The market would also regulate workers’ salaries most objectively. The work competition may increase living standards for all people in an unprecedented manner. People may be pleased with living in such a system. Only this shall be called socialism.
The Labour Division of Socialism
There is no better division of labour than competition among workers based on labour productivity in any public workplace at any given 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 workers' productivity can be complex, but it is also straightforward. The development of human rights through democratic anarchy makes this straightforward.
Democratic anarchy should give people equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers in society. Everyone should have equal rights to evaluate others' productivity for whatever they do. Each positive evaluation should be accompanied by a small award for the assessed person, and each negative assessment should result in a minor penalty. In this manner, democratic anarchy may become the simplest way to establish an economic system that promotes workers' productivity.
Together, people can be more objective than subjective authorities. For example, people determine the market prices of goods following their purchasing needs and financial abilities more objectively than authorities can. Democratic anarchy will do even better because it involves negative evaluations, which means everyone should consider the consequences of their actions on others. If they do not learn enough, the negative assessments they receive from others will teach them to enhance their objectivity.
A practical example of democratic anarchy: Let everyone have the right to give a total of three positive or negative evaluations to other people monthly. Let every positive evaluation bring one dollar, and a negative evaluation take one dollar from the evaluated person. In such a system, the US President might get 100,000,000 negative assessments from the American people for bad policies, lies, and criminal aggression against other countries. This would cost him or her 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. Presidents who fail to meet people's needs will have to resign quickly. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will no longer be authorities, but sincere servants of the people.
Democratic anarchy will eliminate social privileges, the nest of social problems, while teaching people to please others and avoid hurting them. This is crucial for fostering a harmonious society. Democratic anarchy will also let people better protect their interests than their representatives ever could.
Democratic anarchy can quickly reduce social problems, but unfortunately, it cannot be established quickly because authorities have prevented people from trusting others' good intentions. Leaders have always oppressed people through authoritarian social policy. As a result, people have harassed those weaker than them, creating a social culture of a repressive society. Today, oppression is institutionalized through the education system and has expanded through the division of work everywhere because alienated people cannot see a better social solution.
Social improvement will begin when people understand the importance and benefits of equal human rights. Once people accept democratic anarchy, it will change the foundation of society and open the door to building social prosperity. Democratic anarchy will teach people that, regardless of their successes, they must never forget that they are equal community members, a precondition for eliminating social destructiveness and building a bright future. Democratic anarchy is presented in more detail in my article Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy.
Permanently open work competition among workers is much harder to implement than democratic anarchy because such an economy is very demanding. Consequently, people never believed the developed work market was possible, and nobody invested effort in creating it. 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 a necessary condition for societal stability, and therefore, society should guarantee it. In the proposed system, all workers will automatically be economically secure after leaving any job. Also, workers can quickly find new work in a fully employed environment. Such security will remove the widespread fear of unemployment. Capitalism views the primary motivation for work as the fear of 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 company productivity and satisfies 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 working 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 noted that privileges are among the leading causes of societal problems. Eliminating privileges increases productivity and reduces, if not eliminates, corruption and immorality in the community. Over time, people will realize that losing privileges would significantly increase the likelihood of finding work that enhances workers’ productive power. The power of being develops creativity and brings great, stable satisfaction that privileges cannot achieve. As a result, the proposed socialist labour market would bring significant benefits to society.
The Labour Theory of Value in Socialism
Every produced good consists of the values of current and past work. Therefore, a correct labour theory of value is supposed to objectify the current work value and incorporate workers' past work value in calculating the prices of produced goods. The cost of manufactured goods should reflect the total value of work per hour (comprising both current and past work value) of each worker producing commodities. This paper presents the necessary parameters for developing a functional labour theory of value in socialism. Such parameters will enhance econometric methods for establishing economic and social justice and stability in production processes, contributing to general prosperity.
The value of the current work should present the advantages and disadvantages it offers a worker compared to other jobs. Let’s accept that the average value and cost of the current work is 1. A worker who demands the lowest price for the current work will have a better chance of getting a job. 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. However, it will result in them earning 10% less than in an average job. The justification for accepting the lowest bid is that it is the most convenient option for both the worker and society.
The cost of ongoing work will be one of the factors that determines workers' salaries. 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, 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.
Besides the value of the current work, every commodity is produced by a vast number of past work hours, which is impossible to summarize. Still, society needs to establish a method to recognize individual contributions to building societal values, as people generally require their efforts to be acknowledged and appreciated. Also, such recognition is necessary to motivate societal productivity. Ultimately, it will provide a means for efficiently defining people’s social and production responsibilities. It should be assumed that all society's values have been created or owned by the work of individuals in the past. Therefore, defining the past work value of individuals indicates how much they, along with their ancestors, have contributed to the formation of social wealth.
In capitalism, more valuable past work produces more wealth, so individual wealth shows the value of past work. The new economy proposes the voluntary merger of private companies into a corporation owned by shareholders, a concept well-developed in capitalism. Additionally, society possesses public properties built and owned by the people. It would be beneficial for society to acknowledge it as the value of the past work of society and distribute it among people. We can accept Marx’s theory of equal past work value here because another choice can hardly exist.
The capital values of past work should be expanded by values that capitalism does not recognize. For example, without workers, companies cannot produce anything. This means that workers’ existence should be recognized as a social value and accepted as the value of past work. Such a value cannot be objectively determined but may be formed by arbitration in society’s best interest. Similarly, society has established punishments for crimes that are not objective, but beneficial because they deter crime.
People today face the consequences of their crimes in the form of prison sentences. The prison sentences can be recalculated into a negative past work value and deducted from the criminals, resulting in their release from prison. 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 also include human and social improvements that people create. It will motivate people to build on these values further, bringing greater benefits to their societies.
The arbitration of past work values should be publicly discussed and regulated by the law before being democratically accepted by the people. This is a challenging task, and it is likely the most crucial reason why the socialist division of labour cannot be implemented soon. However, once the value of past work is defined, it will become a very efficient tool for determining proper social values, motivating productive behaviour in society, and realizing social and economic responsibilities, allowing the establishment of a highly prosperous society.
The Value of Work
The multiplication of the value of current and past work will define workers' salaries. The average value of current work will be adjusted to 1, while the average value of workers’ past work will be adjusted to GDP per capita. Therefore, the average current work value of 1 and the average past work value of 100,000 points will result in an average salary for workers of 100,000 money units, adjusting workers' wages to reflect the values of the goods and services they produce. Wage adjustments help maintain a stable money supply and prices, which are crucial for a stable economy. If the GDP grows, the number of past work points of workers will increase, leading to higher wages, and vice versa. The mechanism for adjusting the GDP with past work points will be explained on the following page.
However, only the market can establish objective prices of commodities and services. If the market prices bring a company higher revenue than its workers demand for their labour, it creates surplus value. As a result, the workers in those companies would earn more money than they requested. Conversely, if market prices yield companies lower revenue than workers demand, they would receive lower wages than requested, even though they achieve the required productivity. To avoid harmful competition for work, more profitable public companies will surrender the surplus values they receive to those public companies that achieve shortage values in the market.
The overflow of money between companies would keep the balance in the division of work. As a result, all workers 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 differences in achieved revenues. The market is the best gift Mother Nature gives to the economy, capable of bringing justice and stability to the production processes.
The Responsibility of Workers
The developed market of work could not function efficiently without effectively regulating workers’ responsibilities in production processes. In the developed job market, workers may unrealistically raise their productivity offers to secure the 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 immorality in politics and people’s disappointment in it.
The proposed socialist economy will establish efficient individual and collective responsibilities of workers in production through the workers' salaries and the value of past work. If workers do not meet the proposed productivity, they will bear the responsibility of having their wages reduced and losing their past work values in proportion to the unrealized productivity. The latest proposal is a new idea of making workers highly responsible for their productivity, which socialism has so far lacked.
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 value that accountability workers offer for the desired workplaces, the greater their right to work in those workplaces will be, and vice versa.
Then, workers will share collective responsibilities for the realized production, with the value of past work determined by the offered coefficients or responsibilities. For example, if a company increases revenue, a worker who assumes responsibility with a value of 2 will earn twice the previous work value as a worker who assumes accountability with a value of 1. And vice versa: if a company loses money, the worker who assumes responsibility at a value of 2 will lose double the past work value than the one who assumes accountability at a value of 1. Once the company's profit or loss is identified and workers' responsibilities are numerically determined, awarding and punishing workers based on past work values is automatic.
In addition, workers will be held accountable for their individual performance through democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy will give ultimate power to the people by granting them an equal right to award and punish others with a small value reflecting their past work. It will be explained later in this paper.
The Division of Work of Socialism in Practice
The following fictional examples present how the division of work in socialism would work. A baker produces 1000 loaves of bread daily, making it the standard baking productivity with a coefficient value of 1. Next, he values the current work at a coefficient of 1 (assuming this is an average work-price coefficient). Finally, he takes responsibility for his productivity at a coefficient of 1 (assuming this is an average coefficient of 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. The work competitiveness of workers will be determined by the productivity coefficient, calculated by multiplying the productivity and accountability coefficients and dividing the result by the current work price. The worker with the highest productivity coefficient will get the job if the existing worker does not want to match it.
Establishing workers' competitiveness may be challenging because comparing different production values can make selecting the best work offer difficult. Then, the work productivity of a new baker should be evaluated by assessing the quantity and quality of the bread produced. If the promised productivity is not achieved, disputes may arise, and finding solutions may be complex.
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, workers may spend a significant amount of time resolving such issues, thereby reducing the time available for work. Nobel laureate Ronald Coase stated that resolving such an issue would entail costs that are not economically justified. He may be correct, but open competition among workers would still yield superior productivity compared to capitalism.
However, democratic anarchy may be able to resolve such a problem altogether. 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 the productivity of the existing worker. The work price is a minor issue compared to productivity, and it might be standardized in the same way market prices for goods are standardized today. In practice, the highest responsibility required of any worker for any job will be the main, if not the only, requirement for getting the job. Workers' responsibilities will be fine-tuned through democratic anarchy through evaluations by coworkers or customers. The following paragraphs will present what this means.
The baker gets the job by offering to take on responsibility at 1.2. The evaluations of people will be limited. Three evaluations per month, per person, for identifying the most and least responsible individuals, may be sufficient to create an accountable production and society. Therefore, if the baker does not receive any evaluation, the value of their past work will remain unchanged. If the baker receives two negative evaluations from people for whatever reason, they will lose 2.4 points from the value of their past work. Such responsibility will result in a permanent reduction of 2.4 money units from their salary. That means the baker will take high responsibility for everything connected to the bread they produce.
They will also bear the same responsibility if they are negatively evaluated for any actions that negatively impact society beyond bread production, making them accountable to the people for their actions. On the other hand, suppose a baker makes customers or others very satisfied with the bread or anything else they do; they may expect positive evaluations, which will permanently increase their salary. The impact of the assessments may be reduced by a hundred times, but they will still encourage people to behave responsibly.
Another example: The election campaign for a country's president will last as long as the candidates register their values and responsibilities for the presidential 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 or improves for any reason, people might give their presidents positive or negative assessments because they will be considered the most responsible for the country.
Let’s assume a president offers a responsibility value of 1.6 to secure the job. If they receive one million negative evaluations in a month, each affecting 0.01 of their past work points, they will lose 16,000 points, which represents the value of their past work. If the president possessed 100,000 points of past work, they would lose 16% of past work points, having 84.000 points after the evaluation. Individual evaluations will be conducted monthly. So, if the president receives 10 million negative assessments, they will drop into negative territory, with a debt of 60,000 points. 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 improves social life, they will be well rewarded with positive evaluations from people. A million positive evaluations will bring them 16,000 past work points, increasing their salary by 16%.
In any case, those who cannot stand the heat will stay out of the kitchen. Socialism will instill in workers such a strong sense of responsibility for their jobs that they will not dare apply for positions for which they are not qualified. However, if they choose to apply, they will face consequences for poor performance. Their responsibility may be very painful and force them to resign quickly. Or, even better, they might search for replacements to escape the significant 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 contributed to the company's productivity and would still benefit from it, even when they are replaced and no longer contribute to that productivity. The new workers who force previous ones to leave will have to maintain their predecessors' productivity, but will profit only from the increased productivity they provide.
Besides, one should expect that replacing workers without their agreement would likely leave them dissatisfied. They would be able to retaliate by negatively evaluating their replacements through democratic anarchy. Their coworkers and friends may support them. Therefore, workers who want to replace existing ones would most likely negotiate for better conditions to secure their 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 they make executive decisions. For example, suppose company managers want to increase production through substantial investments. Then, they must be supported by workers because the increase in productivity will also bring new responsibilities to the workers. The workers will have the right to modify the values of accepted responsibilities in response to the new managers' proposals. Reducing their responsibilities might indicate they are not confident in the changes managers propose, which could delay or block a new production. Most likely, the 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 more on the basis of cooperation than competition. However, every job will still find the best worker on the market, just as 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 labour market will make the most significant 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 an educational degree. 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 opportunities with the possession of degrees has evolved into the absurdity of bureaucratically restricting the liberty to choose work to a great extent.
Besides, the enormous amount of knowledge the education system imposes on students usually has no connection with people’s professions. It serves the authorities' interests to ensure the survival of an authoritarian system, imposing an unnecessary burden that alienates students from objective reality. Additionally, alienated students struggle to address social issues and contribute to improving society. 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 essential and welcome, but not required for employment, as knowledge can also be acquired independently through practice.
The Expectations of the Socialist Economy
Some regions may adopt the open work competition model 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 are less likely to be 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 sooner or later. 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 private companies to merge into a single public company, operating in a manner similar to large corporations. The company will have a central leadership that will coordinate work. Managers will remain the best option for organizing production in public companies, and the new system will hold them highly accountable for decision-making and ensuring efficient production. Managers will open positions where they are most needed and close those that are not required 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.
Under pressure from democratic anarchy, government authorities will better meet the needs of the people than they do today. The authorities would not dare make the most important decisions for society alone, as they could easily make mistakes that would prompt widespread criticism and numerous negative public 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.
For example, society may directly determine fiscal policy by allowing each individual to decide how much of their gross income to allocate to taxes, after the government determines the necessary tax rates. The sum of all the people's expressions would democratically determine the most appropriate fiscal policy. The tax money will be collected proportionally to the workers' 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, healthcare, infrastructure, and other collective 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 experience, people will learn how much tax should be collected 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, good relations among nations, people will gradually reduce funding for armies until they cease to exist. In the proposed democracy, waging wars would no longer be possible.
The high level of responsibility the proposed work division imposes on workers will force manufacturers to avoid economic losses in an unpredictable market by organizing production in line with consumer demand. Individual consumers will be increasingly required to order their expensive needs in advance. Together with collective consumption based on tax allocation, it will present a foundation for a democratically planned market economy. Such an economy should be considered the most productive and the most stable production possible. Information technology can facilitate such complex production and enable it to operate efficiently, which socialism has so far lacked.
Once equal human rights are fully established through the work market and democratic anarchy, people will develop ethical values capable of creating a harmonious society. 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 only be called socialism. Nothing else deserves this name. Socialism will emerge as the ultimate consequence of equal human rights. Then work will become a value in and of itself while producing abundance. Then the possessing points of past work may become more valuable than the commodities themselves. Then people may discover that collective consumption is the most rational one. Consequently, people may decide to allocate all their income to taxes, making all goods and services available free of charge. This will be communism, the system in which the joy of life becomes the ultimate value, as Karl Marx dreamed. Communism will not replace capitalism, as Marx believed; rather, it will be the final stage of its improvement.
Building socialism is a much more complicated task than reforming capitalism. The presented socialist solution is not final because it opens up a spectrum of possibilities. It is hard to choose the best solutions without practice. However, one may be confident that social scientists will further develop the best socialist choices through their experience based on the significantly improved theory of equal human rights. As a result, the development of socialism will eliminate social evil and create a bright future that surpasses the wildest dreams of today. This article provides a brief overview of the book "Humanism: A Philosophical-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of Society."