Fred Chittenden wrote:

Working privileges are best set by private agreement between worker and employer with some basic guidelines for civility in the process. In general, the more centralized this process is, the less productive and response is the resulting workforce. And visa versa.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Free market we recognise so far has been giving the highest production but also it gave some limitations and those were not rational productions, not stable productions, not fair distributions of benefits, and crisis. A centralized process of production mostly solves such problems. Yes, in general, the more centralized processes have given a less productive environment. But in the future, that will change. Thanks to the development of computer technology, the central managing of huge companies becomes easier then before and as a result, huge corporations are more productive than small ones and grow. However, the huge international corporations are still fully incapable of solving social problems such as unemployment and fair distribution of benefits that come from work so that social crisis are going to grow as well. Therefore, in order to solve this problem I propose much more market than capitalism can afford. Under the public property I offer open work competition all the time where each job should go to the worker who proposes higher productivity, lower price for the present work and higher responsibility for doing it. That is a huge challenge to society but also this is the future of production. In order to diminish employment tensions the management will have to establish the same amount of work posts as there are workers available. Such an economy will finally solve problems of today's production.

This kind of production will be much better and profitable than the production of private enterprises and therefore, private enterprises will lose competition on the free market. In order to escape from losses, the owners of private enterprises will join the public ownership of the means of production. They will receive the "humanistic" shares proportionally to the values of surrendered ownerships and that will proportionally raise their income. Therefore, capitalists may find interest in selling their enterprises to society. If not, nobody will try to take their property from them.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

You are talking about centralized planning, not just individual planning?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:
 

Production will be planned by producers the same way the enterprises plan their production today. For the best result, they may involve consumers to order their consumption. That would be the democratically planned economy - the best and safest economy possible. So that centralized planning will be just a sum of all individual planning.

Yes of course I believe that centralized planning is the best. It is more rational and secure than the planning of independent enterprises. Big businesses know that and that is the reason they merge. To avoid poor productivity of the Soviet model for example, we need to implement the market competition on a lower level, on the level of work places. Best worker at every work place at any time would make the highest possible productivity (13 pages here from my book would explain it). 

As a result, consumers would have less chances to choose between similar type of goods or services because the competition between similar products and services will diminish. That would bring more rationality to the process of production. The highest level of quality and satisfaction of the consumer's needs will be enforced by the consumers evaluation of products and services. Do you remember democratic anarchy (plus minus one dollar or whatever)? 

This is the future of everything.

Adrian Parker wrote:

How can a "socialist company" allocate resources any more efficiently than a capitalist one? Surely there is a big incentive for capitalist companies to also get the "best man for the job", and I don't see any reason why a socialist system could do this any more wisely than capitalists (after all, if a capitalist company doesn't allocate resources well, it cannot compete with those companies that do, so eventually there will be capitalist companies that are able to put the best man for each job just as well as any "socialists company").

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Actually I have called it a humanist company. It sounded weird at the beginning but I got used to it. 

The capitalist company would not be able to allocate the human resources as well as the humanistic one. For example, in the capitalist company the worker who might produce 5% more than the existing worker could not get the job. He cannot even apply for the position without an announcement. The owner of the company could not easily accept his offer because the system does not provide any warranties for the proposed productivity. The existing laws prevent owners from firing the existing worker in order to hire more productive ones even when he wishes it. I am talking about every work place at any time. 

The humanist company can easily provide all of that and therefore it will be more productive. In a society of million workers for instance, each of them will be able to compete for every job at every work post. Logic said at least one of them will perform the work productivity better than the worker in the capitalist company where such competitive opportunity could not exist.

Secondly, all the workers will be the humanistic shareholders of the humanist company and therefore, they would be certainly much more concerned and responsible for the work than the workers in the capitalist company. As a result, the humanist company will be much more productive and the capitalist one will have to withdraw. We may assume that the capitalist companies would try hard to find an escape by forming the same work organisation as the public ones but they would never be able to allow workers to choose their responsibilities and salaries so that they would have to go to history.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Why hasn't anyone ever established a humanist company, if it is superior to current capitalist companies? Is a change in laws needed, for example give employers the power to fire anyone they think is not efficient enough for the job?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

First of all, in the new system a fire-hire relationship will not exist any more. The new production relationships will be based on the work competition. Better production bid will get the job anytime. If the worker does not realize the proposed production he is going to pay the responsibility with his humanistic shares. How that would work? If I, for example, would like to get the job belonging to some other worker, I would have to offer a higher productivity or lower price of present work for the desired work post. Then, the existing worker who works at the work post I would like to take, would have two choices: first, to accept my production bid what will allow him to continue holding his work position; or second, the responsibility for the new requirements of the position will force him to leave. If he leaves he would continue to receive an income, which would be lower each month he does not work. However, the system can easily create a needed number of work places so that it will not be hard for anybody to get a new job.