Summary: This paper argues that equal human rights are essential to creating a prosperous society. According to this paper, a well-developed system of equal human rights can theoretically build a successful socialist society. In practice, workers can achieve full equality only in socialism, where they can compete for every public workplace at any given time. Such division of labour requires developing an objective labour theory of value that establishes an effective econometric method for determining work productivity, assigning responsibility, and ensuring fair compensation for workers in production processes. Every public workplace will be filled with workers who offer higher productivity, greater accountability, and lower ongoing costs at any time. Such an economy cannot be realized soon because it requires significant development before implementation. Still, once established, private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies, because no economy is better than one where each job gets the best available worker. It will send capitalism into history. This paper theoretically defines how equal human rights can contribute to a productive, just, and stable socialist economy.
Keywords: capitalism, socialism, communism, political philosophy, democratic anarchy, labour theory of value, developed market of work
1. The Failures of the Marxist Economy
Karl Marx witnessed the enormous exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production. He fought for justice by criticizing capitalism and its contradictions (Marx, 1984). His principles for building communism, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” (Marx, 1970), were a visionary work of a genius. But he also made mistakes. Marx is an authority in the social sciences, and without acknowledging his mistakes, building a better society would be difficult.
Karl Marx defined exploitation as the owners of capital appropriating workers’ surplus value. However, Marx did not specify what salary workers objectively need to earn to avoid exploitation, as this is impossible to determine through observation or calculation. Only workers’ satisfaction can eliminate exploitation, which can be achieved through a fair labour market where jobs and workers are valued equally.
Karl Marx believed the market economy exploited workers, so he proposed eliminating the market and replacing it with a system of worker-controlled production. 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, Marx did not define how this economy would work. He believed workers would plan and organize production to satisfy their needs.
Worker-organized production required social ownership of the means of production. Karl Marx believed public ownership of the means of production would eliminate capitalism's deficiencies. He named the first phase of social ownership of the means of production “the lower stage of communism.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin defined the lower stage of communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” (Lenin, 2017), which Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin later referred to as socialism. Socialism was intended to grant workers equal rights in production, free them from capitalist exploitation, and establish a just and prosperous society.
Because capitalists would never allow workers to control their capital, Karl Marx proposed in The Communist Manifesto a revolutionary takeover of private property to establish the lower stage of communism (Marx, 1983). He justified revolution and the confiscation of private property by arguing that capitalists had built their capital on the exploitation of workers, which is generally valid to some extent. However, some people invest years in improving production, such as building machines that replace workers. Should they not have more say and earn more than others? Marxian socialists have not found this acceptable because they advocate equality. The author of this paper believes that wage inequality is a philosophical problem, and a solution should be found democratically.
Karl Marx did not define the term "revolution," so some Marxian philosophers questioned his intentions toward violence, even in the Communist Manifesto (Schaff, 1973). Still, they have never explained how a social revolution can be carried out peacefully. (This paper defines a peaceful socialist revolution for the first time). Marxist revolutionaries have been building socialism only through force. Although violent revolutions may replace one social injustice, they are always replaced by another. To ensure revolutions have a lasting effect, revolutionary leadership must be autocratic and oppressive. Oppression prevents equal human rights, which are essential for building a good 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 effectively denied the value of past work, creating a new problem. In capitalism, the owners of capital bear responsibility for production with their capital, which is the accumulated value of past labour. Capital made capitalists highly responsible for production processes. By denying the value of past work, socialism loses a successful way to penalize workers for damage they may cause in production processes. Marx knew that removing the market economy would remove the indicators of efficient productivity, so he called upon workers' conscience to replace them. Marx attempted to instill responsible production by appealing to the workers' consciences.
Karl Marx believed that a highly developed human conscience, as needed for communism, could create a responsible society. He probably assumed that workers' equality would build their consciences, and he was right. Unfortunately, people have never established equal human rights, which are necessary for developing a human conscience. Nothing conscious may come from a society controlled by oppressive authorities. Dominant leaders create a sense of inferiority among those they lead, fostering societal problems rather than solving them. Since equal human rights have never existed, society has never learned how to build a prosperous future.
Karl Marx’s idea of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” was also unrealistic because people have different needs and would hardly agree on anything in common, and they could never agree on everything. The most developed form of self-managed production emerged in socialist Yugoslavia, where workers made production decisions by participating in workers' councils. In practice, such decision-making was formal and time-consuming, and if production failed, it relieved managers of their responsibilities. “It deteriorated production efficiency and led to economic disaster” (Liotta, 2001). Liotta might have been a bit harsh, but he was still not far from the truth. Marx’s idea of a democratically organized economy was noble, but it ultimately failed because it was inherently flawed. In socialism, workers would not need to decide on production processes they do not understand, but they would have the right to hold their leaders responsible for their decisions.
Marxist socialist ideology was created to establish a humane and just production process, but it had many shortcomings. Socialism eliminated unemployment by guaranteeing the right to work and ensuring people’s survival. Everyone got a job, even if their work did not satisfactorily contribute to the company’s productivity. Socialist protection of workers contributed to production inefficiency.
By abandoning the market economy, socialist authorities had no choice but to plan production for society's benefit. For example, they planned how many tons of wheat the state would need to feed its people. They were relatively successful in planning society's basic needs. However, socialist leaders paid little attention to individual needs because they could not gather accurate information about them. The authorities also struggled to manage complex production processes from a single center. As a result, people's individual needs were less satisfied in socialism than in capitalism.
To create a just economy, Karl Marx replaced the market value of work with the labour theory of value, which he adapted from Adam Smith and David Ricardo and incorporated into 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.” However, an accurate labour theory of value should be based not on an average number of labour hours, but on each participant's exact work hours and the exact value of their work. Ignoring these principles led to a simplified calculation of production values, reducing accuracy and rendering the labour theory of value calculation practically irrelevant.
The labour theory of value states that work determines the value of commodities. However, commodity values also determine the value of work. These values depend on each other, and the market balances them. However, economic science has not developed effective principles for balancing the values of work and goods in production processes. This paper proposes a solution to inconsistencies in the labour theory of value, thereby enhancing its utility.
The crucial problem with the labour theory of value is that it can account only for current production work hours. At the same time, each commodity consists of an enormous number of past work hours that contributed to its production throughout history, which is impossible to calculate. Consequently, it highlights the flaws and limitations of such a theory. Marx found a way out of this problem by denying the importance of past work in the labour theory of value. He subjectively presumed that workers would earn as much as their employers if employers did not take surplus production value from them. Marxists accepted this misleading, nonscientific conclusion.
As a result, the balanced value of workers’ past work demanded that current work hours be valued equally. Therefore, socialism demanded equalized salaries regardless of workers’ positions, productivity, effort, or responsibilities. However, Marxism did not sufficiently differentiate between productive and non-productive work, responsible and irresponsible work, and challenging and easy work. As a result, balanced wages have weakened the motivation for efficient work, leading to poor production.
Moreover, socialism did not destroy classes as Marx desired. Political leaders were high-class citizens. They were privileged because they held power over people and did not need a high salary, since they received most of what they needed for free. Political privileges undermined socialism, highlighting that equal human rights are the ultimate solution.
The USSR and China accepted the centrally planned economy. As a result, their economies were less productive than capitalist economies. The USSR collapsed because people were dissatisfied with the inefficiency of the centrally planned economy. China learned from its mistakes and abandoned the Marxist planned economy in 1978, adopting a capitalist market economy regulated in society's interests. As a result, China has shown that a market economy built primarily in the interests of the people has grown faster than those of the West, which are regulated in the interests of capital. China’s economy is threatening to take the number one position globally. This paper argues that a socialist economy could be far more productive than China's economy.
Marxist economics was created as a noble attempt to build a humane society. Still, it did not work because Marx did not sufficiently understand the importance of equal human rights and did not put enough effort into defining them. Frankly, he could not have done it without computer technology. Similarly, scientists today do not fully understand the vital importance of implementing equal human rights in solving social problems. This paper supports the thesis that social issues cannot be eliminated without equal human rights, while equal human rights will, in turn, eliminate social problems unconditionally.
The primary question for the Marxian economy is why Marx did not advocate for shorter work hours to increase demand for workers and their wages, thereby reducing or eliminating their exploitation. Marx likely did not do so because negotiating working conditions between employers and workers was almost impossible in his time. However, the fact that unemployment causes worker exploitation should have been disseminated, regardless of how difficult it was to implement. Today, striving for shorter work hours is incomparably simpler and more rational, and it will yield much better results than igniting violent revolutions and completely changing the socioeconomic system.
Karl Marx suggested that alienation in production processes should be eliminated through workers’ cooperation and control over production, and he was correct. Still, no method to achieve this goal has been successfully developed. The political Left has sought to challenge capitalism by developing cooperatives that promote worker collaboration in decision-making. This idea is problematic because workers have diverse needs, making it challenging to reach agreements on production matters. Successful cooperatives are an exception rather than a production model that could replace capitalism. Only a more productive economy can replace capitalism; this paper aims to define what that means.
2. A Developed Market of Work In Socialism
A developed market economy will fully implement equal human rights, enabling it to achieve further social and economic prosperity. People generally do not think the problems of the market economy stem primarily from its underdevelopment. However, the author argues that the main concern 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, 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 workers, not jobs.
The economy’s future requires that workers become equal subjects in production. This will be achieved when all workers have equal opportunities to choose any public job at any given time. Society needs to establish a standard for selecting workers. History has shown that no employment principle is more socially justified than hiring the best available worker for each job.
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 may sound impossible because such a division of labour has never existed. However, it is just a technical problem that can be solved, benefiting society enormously.
To achieve such an economic system, we need an efficient way to evaluate productivity and responsibility, and to harmonize rewards across all jobs. In summary, workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability, and demand the lowest work costs, should be given any public job at any time. This would be nothing but a developed labour market. However, the job market will take time to develop and be accepted by people.
Work competition in the market will incentivize workers far more than capitalism can through wages. Workers would never be endangered because every worker could find a job in a fully employed environment. It would create such strong responsibility that no one would dare offer work proposals they could not meet. The market would also regulate workers’ salaries most objectively. Work competition may raise living standards for all people in an unprecedented way. People will be pleased with living in such a system. Only this shall be called socialism.
3. The Labour Division in Socialism
No division of labour is better than competition among workers based on their 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, and better, cleaner, and cheaper production will get the desired job. Comparing workers’ productivity may be complex, but it can also be very simple. 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 econometric system for workers’ productivity.
Together, people can be more objective than subjective authorities. For example, people determine market prices based on 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 don't learn enough, the negative assessments they receive from others will teach them to be more objective.
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 each positive evaluation add one dollar, and each negative evaluation take one dollar from the evaluated person. In such a system, the US President might receive 100,000,000 negative assessments from the American people for their unacceptable policies, lies, and criminal aggression against other countries. This would cost them 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 creating a social culture capable of building a harmonious society. In addition, democratic anarchy will allow people to protect their interests better than their representatives 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 everywhere because oppressed people cannot see a better social solution. Social improvement will begin when people fully understand the benefits of equal human rights. Once people accept democratic anarchy, it will change society's foundation and open the door to a bright future for humankind (Šarović, 2026).
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 them. Once people consider such a division of labour, it could open the door to significant economic and social improvement.
Of course, such a division of work would apply only to public companies, because applying it to private enterprises would practically amount to 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 workers already employed at such workplaces do not want to leave their jobs, they must accept the competitor’s productivity and, in that case, continue in their positions. If they cannot take on the new responsibilities or do not want to, they will leave immediately and let the competitor take their place.
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. Additionally, workers can quickly find new employment in a fully employed environment. Such security will remove the widespread fear of unemployment. Capitalists find worker motivation primarily in fear of economic survival, which does not provide them with sufficient financial security. Socialism will inspire work through free 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 be justified. 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 in itself.
Furthermore, the open labour market will eliminate privileges. Today, people may see the loss of privileges as a major disadvantage. However, 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.
4. 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 parameters needed to develop 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 current work should be presented in terms of the advantages and disadvantages it offers a worker compared to other jobs. Let’s assume the average value and cost of the current work are 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 in the average job may request a value of 0.9 for the current work price to be more competitive. However, they will earn 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 factor that determines workers' salaries. In this regard, the job 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 demand 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 current work, every commodity is produced by a vast number of past work hours, which is impossible to summarize. Still, society needs a way to recognize individual contributions to shaping societal values, as people generally need their efforts to be acknowledged and appreciated. Such recognition is also necessary to motivate societal productivity. Ultimately, it provides a means to define people’s social and production responsibilities efficiently. It should be assumed that individuals created or owned all of society's values in the past. Therefore, defining individuals' past work value 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 owns public property built and owned by the people. Society should acknowledge the value of past work in creating such values 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 value of past work should be expanded to include 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 be accepted as the value of past work. Such value cannot be objectively determined but may be formed by arbitration in society’s best interest. Similarly, society has established punishments for crimes that have nothing to do with objectivity, but are beneficial because they prevent crimes.
People today face prison sentences for the crimes they commit. Prison sentences can be recalculated into a negative past work value and deducted from 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 would be much more humane. Past work values would also include the human and social improvements people create. This would motivate people to build on these values, bringing greater benefits to their societies.
Past work values should be publicly discussed and legally regulated before people democratically accept them. 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 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, an average current work value of 1 and an average past work value of 100,000 points will result in an average salary of 100,000 money units, adjusting workers’ wages according to the values of the goods and services produced. Wage adjustments help maintain a stable money supply and prices, which are crucial for a steady economy. If GDP grows, workers' past work points increase, leading to higher wages, and vice versa. The mechanism for adjusting 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 market prices yield a company higher revenue than its workers demand, 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 competition for work, more profitable public companies will surrender the surplus value they receive to those public companies that achieve shortage values in the market.
The flow of money between companies would maintain balance in the division of work. As a result, all workers will earn as much as they desire, matching the productivity they offer. 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 developed work market could not function without effective regulation of workers’ responsibilities in production processes. In a developed job market, workers may unrealistically raise their productivity offers to secure the jobs they want. Such irresponsibility may cause the economic system to collapse. Today, for example, politicians do precisely that, which is one of the leading causes of immorality in politics and people’s disappointment.
The proposed socialist economy will establish efficient individual and collective worker responsibilities in production through their salaries and the value of past work. If workers do not meet the proposed productivity, they will bear the responsibility by accepting lower wages and losing their past work values in proportion to the unrealized productivity. The latest development is a new idea of making workers highly responsible for the productivity they achieve, which socialism has yet to accomplish.
The workers will numerically determine the scope of their responsibilities in the production processes of public companies. Let’s say the average responsibility is 1. The higher the accountability workers offer to the desired workplaces, the greater their right to work in those workplaces will be, and vice versa.
Then workers share collective responsibility for 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 offers work responsibility at a value of 2 will earn double the past work value of a worker who provides accountability at 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 of 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.
5. Socialist Division of Labour In Practice
The following fictional examples show how the division of labour 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 at a coefficient of 1 (assuming this is an average responsibility coefficient for all jobs).
Then, a new baker who wants to take the existing baker's position must offer a productivity value greater than 1, request a lower price for the current work (a value less than 1), or offer higher responsibility (a value greater than 1). Workers' competitiveness is determined by the productivity coefficient, calculated by multiplying the productivity and accountability coefficients and then dividing the result by the current work price. The worker with the higher 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 it difficult to select the best offer. Then, a new baker's productivity 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 difficult.
For example, if the supplied bread ingredients are not satisfactory, it may affect the baker's realized productivity, for which he might not be responsible. Finally, because the job description is usually more complex than in this example, workers might spend a lot of time resolving such issues, reducing the time available for work. Nobel laureate Ronald Coase stated that resolving such an issue would entail costs that are not economically justified (Coase, 1937). He may be correct, but open competition among workers would still yield higher productivity than capitalism.
However, democratic anarchy may resolve such a problem entirely. By accepting democratic anarchy, workers would no longer need to offer their productivity; their productivity would be assumed to be equal to or better than that 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 work responsibility at 1.2. People's evaluations will be limited. Three evaluations per month, focusing on the most and least responsible individuals, may be enough 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 impact society beyond bread production, making them accountable to the people for their actions. On the other hand, suppose a baker makes customers or other people very satisfied with the bread or anything else they do. They may expect positive evaluations, which will result in a permanent salary increase. The impact of the assessments may be reduced by a factor of 100, but it is still enough to encourage people to behave responsibly.
Another example: A presidential election campaign will last as long as candidates register the values of their responsibilities for the president’s position. This also reflects the election process, as the highest bid secures 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 are considered 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, representing the value of their past work. If the president had 100,000 points of past work, they would lose 16% of those points, leaving 84,000 points after the evaluation. People’s evaluations will be performed monthly. So, if the president receives 10 million negative assessments, they will drop into negative value—a debt of 60,000 points. In this case, they should pay the penalty to the economy instead of earning a salary. If the president cannot pay it, they 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 create such significant job responsibilities that workers will not dare apply for jobs they are not qualified for. 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 seek replacements to avoid the significant losses in past work value.
In practice, work replacements would hardly exist without agreements among workers. When workers take jobs from other workers, they are considered to have contributed to the company's productivity needs. They would still profit from it even when they are replaced and no longer contribute to that productivity. New workers who force previous ones to leave must maintain the 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 could 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 the jobs. Thus, one may expect workers to be replaced 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 workers must support them, because the productivity increase will also bring new responsibilities. Workers will have the right to adjust the value of accepted responsibilities in response to 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 build mutual relationships that emphasize cooperation over 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 strongly contribute to the development of the economy and society.
Since workers will not apply for jobs they are not qualified for, there is no need to condition employment on having a degree. Firstly, a degree does not guarantee workers’ skills or productivity. Secondly, requiring diplomas for work unnecessarily restricts access to desired jobs. Limiting employment opportunities to degree holders has become absurd: a bureaucratic restriction on people's liberty to choose work.
Besides, the enormous amount of knowledge the education system imposes on students usually has no connection to people’s professions. It serves 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 problems and contribute to societal improvement. In this regard, we must remove education as a bureaucratic requirement for 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 and through practice.
6. The Expectations of Socialism
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. Because workers in private companies do not have the same 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. Because private companies are less productive than public companies, 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. Company owners will receive 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 that operates like a large corporation. The company will have central leadership to coordinate work. Managers will remain the best option for organizing production in public companies, and the new system will hold them to a high standard for decision-making and efficient production. Managers will open positions where they are most needed and close those that are not required enough. This economic organization will reduce market competition between companies. Still, it will ensure high production efficiency by shifting competition from between companies to individual jobs.
Under pressure from democratic anarchy, government authorities will follow the people's needs more closely than they do today. The authorities would not dare make the most important decisions for society alone, as they could easily make mistakes that might provoke public wrath and numerous negative evaluations. Suppose authorities are unsure of the people’s needs. Their responsibility, clearly defined by respect for people’s evaluations, will lead them to promote people’s participation in strategic decision-making through referendums. In this regard, they will most likely develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for people to make direct decisions, probably online.
For example, society may directly determine fiscal policy by allowing individuals to decide how much of their gross income to allocate to taxes, after the government determines the necessary tax brackets. The sum of everyone’s preferences would democratically determine the most appropriate fiscal policy. Tax money would be collected proportionally to workers’ salaries.
Similarly, each person can decide how to allocate their taxes. People will decide how much tax they set aside for economic development, public safety, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other collective needs. Theoretically, people can decide on collective consumption within consumer groups as they see fit. These shared consumption groups will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated.
From this experience, people will learn how much tax to collect and the best way to spend it. Thus, this spending will no longer be alienated from society; it will 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 division of work requires of workers will force manufacturers to avoid economic losses in an unpredictable market by organizing production to match consumer demand. Individual consumers will be increasingly required to order their expensive needs in advance. Together with collective consumption based on the democratic tax allocation, it will present a foundation for a democratically planned market economy. Such an economy should be considered the most stable production possible. Information technology can facilitate such complex production and enable it to operate efficiently, which socialism has yet to achieve.
Once equal human rights are fully established through the work market and democratic anarchy, people will develop ethical values that create a harmonious society. Police, courts, and prisons as symbols of authoritarian government will become obsolete and go down in history. This will cause states to fall out of history as well.
The complete implementation of equal human rights in the economy should be called socialism alone. 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 points of possession 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 from gross income to taxes, making all goods and services available free of charge. That will be communism, the best social system Karl Marx dreamed about. Communism will not replace capitalism, as Marx believed; it will be the final stage of its upgrade.
Building socialism is a much more complex task than reforming capitalism. The presented socialist solution is not final because it leaves a spectrum of possibilities open. Choosing the best solutions is hard 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, socialism will eliminate social evils and create a bright future that surpasses today's wildest dreams. The book “Humanism - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society (Šarović, 1992) presents the political economy of prosperous socialism.
7. Process that Creates a Good Society
The process is simple: Free people who respect others' freedom master their destiny. Equal human rights will enforce freedom, enabling people to live well unconditionally. Equal human rights will empower people to resist authority. Authorities and their privileges will disappear together with obedient, powerless people. People released from the pressure of authorities will be able to demystify the alienated values imposed on them throughout history and discover natural ways of living. Removing privileges will eliminate the central nest of narcissism, which is the main cause of human destructiveness. (Fromm,1973). Eliminating privileges by establishing equal human rights is crucial for developing a harmonious society.
Democratic anarchy can offer a more efficient model of social responsibility than the capitalist economy, teaching people to rely on their own power to meet their needs. It guides people to align their needs with their ability to satisfy them. This is the primary prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society, as individuals who consistently meet their needs are more likely to be satisfied and less likely to exhibit destructive behaviour. In such a society, people will eliminate human and social destructiveness. Then society will develop a new culture that fosters a productive orientation and builds a bright future for humankind.
People have a vibrant inner world where all emotions, including love, hate, misery, and joy, reside. In a society where people understand that they are equal to all others, regardless of their accomplishments, they will no longer feel the need to compare themselves with others. In such a society, exploiting the outer world will barely yield noticeable benefits to people. Therefore, people will begin searching for values within their inner world. When such an orientation is accepted, hate and misery will be eliminated because they do not exist in the inner world of individuals who are relieved of the need to compare themselves with others. In contrast, love and joy will develop significantly because nothing destructive exists in the inner world of individuals who are relieved of the need to compare themselves with others. People who do not compete with others generally prove it.
The most critical point of an individual's creation is themselves. Exploring the inner world enables people to enlighten themselves and become more productive. The more people get to know themselves, the more freedom, peace, joy, and wisdom they can achieve. Developed people achieve what they need on their own; they love the world unconditionally just because it exists. We learn through our lives what is good and what is bad. Equal human rights are the best teacher. They will enlighten people, enabling them to create a prosperous society that surpasses even today's wildest dreams.
8. The Conclusion
History has shown that authoritarian social systems produce social problems, whereas those that grant greater rights create better societies. This is sufficient to conclude that fully implementing equal human rights will create the most optimal social system possible. Nevertheless, authorities prevent the dissemination of knowledge about equal human rights to maintain their social privileges. As a result, social life has always been based on exerting personal power over people rather than on equal human rights. As a result, people cannot reach social prosperity.
Equal human rights may solve social problems and provide the best life possible for all. Teachers will not need to teach people how to create a good society; equal human rights will do so spontaneously, and people will love the result. This paper argues that people cannot achieve more significant societal progress than 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 the greatest discovery of all time. Therefore, opening a public discussion about equal human rights is essential for building a bright future for humankind.
References:
Coase, R. 1937. The Nature of the Firm, Economica, Wiley Online Library.
Fromm, E. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
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,
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.
Šarović, A. 1992. Humanism - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of Society, sarovic.net.
Šarović, A. 2026. Democratic Anarchy Will Create Good Democracy, sarovic.org.
Schaff, A. 1973. Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence, Journal of the History of Ideas, The University of Pennsylvania Press. (Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 263-270)