Labour Division

Back Home Up Next




               Work Division   


It is visible from the earlier overview that the market economy does not have the operative possibility to establish long-term stability. A stable system of business activity can only be established by a planned economy. Planned activity needs to be based on known social needs. In such circumstances, all producers get associated and organize themselves to meet social demand. In such a form of production the workers would need to meet all their needs as workers and consumers.

There is no doubt that the conditions are currently not mature as yet for establishing such a form of production. However, it is possible to form a market economy system that will orient itself according to the stable planned economy and thus optimally meet social needs.

This is possible to achieve by pooling the commune's economy through a buy-out of private ownership of the means of production with past labour points. Such a measure would let all inhabitants become humanistic shareholders of all companies in the commune. Such ownership could be called communal, while the management system would be similar to that of a large shareholding company, with humanistic corrections. The associated economy of the commune will ensure the largest possible stability of the commune's economic system, full employment of workers, and a democratic decision-making in the process of production.

Big changes will be introduced into the system of work division. The deficiency of the present-day work division is that it does not offer a wide enough possibility of work choice. Namely, filled up work posts in the associated labour, meaning almost all work posts, are not accessible to other candidates or unemployed workers. Such work posts are privileged even in capitalism which has developed a market competing system of doing business. Ensured work posts offer economic security to workers but they at the same time, certainly lull their productive forces. When one cannot choose their work, it is hard to expect from them to realize their creative essential forces. The work then becomes monotonous, forceful and as such contributes insufficiently, no doubt, to the production of conveniences in society. Such work per se, is not a value, which is a pity, because an ordinary individual spends a large part of their lives doing work that does not bring them conveniences.

In centralized forms of economy such problems are even more pronounced. That is why the new system has to introduce a permanently open competition for each work post and to fill in every work post with the worker who will realize the greatest productivity there. The problem of privileged work posts will no longer exist in such a system, work will become a value, and productivity the largest necessity.

The system requires the abolition of business secrets as a condition for disalienation and a general prosperity of the society as a whole. In the future, information and knowledge will represent the largest capital. Therefore, conduct of a policy of an open insight into business activity will come across obstacles. The new system will remove such obstacles by giving satisfactory rewards to inventive workers. Any idea that brings progress in the process of production will be defined, and then the protagonist of such idea will be compensated with an adequate quantity of past labour points, corresponding to the contribution such idea makes.


Associated labour requires an organized division of work. In the complex process of production, the work of workers is markedly interconnected and mutually dependent, which requires a high degree of preciseness and discipline in production relations within the work process. Managers in all community activities will carry out such work organization. Managers need to analyze the working potential of workers, the potential of the means of production and market needs, and then orient the associated labour so as to be able to most efficiently satisfy the social needs.

It will be the duty of managers to distribute the work in the manner that will allow full employment of workers. Otherwise, competition among workers for the work posts would create unhealthy relations in production. With changes occurring in social needs, the work meeting such needs will have to be changed as well. In this connection, managers will need to have authority to either expand or narrow, according to their own judgment, the work obligations of each work post, to close work posts not sufficiently needed, and open new ones to take care of the balance in the supply and demand of work by workers.

Work posts in less productive enterprises have their contracted obligations that have to be observed by management, as long as there is a need for them. If these are the work posts that reduce volume because need is falling, the number of workers will get smaller and smaller until full shutdown of the enterprise. The workers whose employment is terminated because of the reorientation of the economy will be recognized to have met their contracted obligations in full and would thus be remunerated for their work, and will seek new jobs with the assistance of management.

All work posts are subject to work competition in the market of work within the operational possibility of each work post. Candidates for the commune's leaders manifest their productive power by the proposed productivity of the commune. Each candidate analyzes the existing resources and proposes a program for achieving a higher productivity of the commune.

The assembly or council of the commune elects the best candidate for the post of the commune's leader. The assembly consists of a Chamber of Citizens elected in elections, and of a Chamber of Economy consisting of shareholders holding the largest number of past labour points in the commune.

The commune leaders will follow up the operation of enterprises, act in line with the agreed upon and established authorities, and direct the work where it is most needed. Leaders of the commune elect managers of enterprises, and their decision has to be approved by the managing board of each enterprise, composed of the workers with the largest number of past labour points. Lower-ranking managers will have at their disposal the socially owned means of production and a certain number of workers. They direct work in an organized fashion in order for their enterprise to accomplish the highest productivity possible.  

And finally, each worker freely competes for the exercise of the right to work at any work post. Management establishes the necessary productivity and accountability for each work post. However, each worker may expand the obligations assigned to their work in the function of quantity and quality of such work, if they contribute to improved productivity of the collective, which is evaluated by management.  

Workers are bound to comply with the requirements of their management and the contracted obligations; however, they will be free to act autonomously, in line with the autonomy granted by their management. The same applies to the relationship between the lower- and higher-ranking management. If production were performed according to the requirements of higher-ranking management only, it would be exclusively centralized. Management of the economy cannot organize the entire production. In that regard, the higher-ranking management must grant to the lower-ranking management an adequate autonomy in their work.  

If a new production would require a larger amount of cash assets, or a larger volume of work engagement, the lower-ranking management will have to seek permission therefore from the higher-ranking management. The lower-ranking management may dispose fully independently of a smaller amount of money or a smaller quantity of work for the needs of expanding the economy. The only a optimal relationship between the higher- and lower-ranking management's decisions needs to be such so as to allow the economy to realize the largest productivity.  

A higher-ranking manager who would give only a few rights to the lower-ranking management would be overburdened with making less important decisions, while the lower-ranking management would be limited in its entrepreneurship, which would result in stagnation and the lagging behind of the economy. If the higher-ranking management gave too man authorities to the lower-ranking managers, the possibility of coordinating actions would decrease. A great freedom would bring along the inconveniences of an anarchic market economy. In this regard, the higher-ranking management needs to maintain a permanent contact with the lower-ranking management. It would in that way receive feedback about the level of work capacity utilization in certain plants, which allows a constant spill over of work and a greater utilization of work capacity.  


A worker who offers the highest productivity and responsibility and the lowest price of their own current labour or, more precisely, the lowest income is the most suitable for the collective staff and the society as a whole and therefore they should get the right to work at such work post. Each work, management included, may be defined in the function of productivity, responsibility and the work price. In order to more easily compare the mentioned different work functions, it is necessary to express for each work post the mentioned values by the following coefficient:   


C-work competition =


This formula will require the coordination of influences of each variable. After that it will give the value that points to the competitive capability of a worker for a needed work post. Each worker proposes a magnitude of coefficients according to their own capabilities for the job they wish to perform. A worker who offers a higher productivity, a higher labour responsibility, and a lower current work price will win the right to work at the desired work post. Besides that, the realized higher C-of work competition allows each worker to take the work post of another worker with the obligation to assume all labour obligations and responsibilities of that work post. 


Labour Productivity  

Each work has its measure of productivity. Today, the measure of productivity can be in the easiest, most comprehensive and most efficient manner determined by cash profit on the market. Cash profit in the free market involves all elements of productive business activity such as the quantity and quality of work, cost effectiveness, rationality, usability, serviceability, etc. Cash profit is the social evaluation of the success of business performance of independent workers and enterprises. However, there are no commodity-money relations within the enterprise, so that productivity needs to be expressed by the quantity and quality of the goods and services produced in a determined time interval. 

Where it is not possible to establish exactly the labour productivity by the produced goods or where the establishment of productivity would take too much time, productivity can be expressed by the assessment of the operating result value. An existing productivity expressed by grade for each work post has the value of 1 (one). A worker believing that they can increase the productivity by 10% will offer the assessment of their own productivity higher by 10% of existing productivity, and the value of their envisaged productivity will then be 1.1. The work assessment may replace all other forms of labour productivity valuation. Each worker can show his C-productivity by the formula: 


C-of envisaged productivity  =    

The envisaged productivity expressed in money, products or work estimate, and if identical with the existing one, will form the coefficient 1(one). A coefficient larger than 1, will indicate a work more productive than the existing one. A worker who offers a larger coefficient will exercise their right the desired work post.  

Once the accounting period is over, it is necessary to valorize the realized productivity in order to establish the success of the work offer made by the worker. The realized productivity may be presented by a coefficient with the following formula:  


 C – of realized productivity =   


The realized productivity expressed by cash profit on the market may efficiently show the success of the business activity and other forms of productivity valorization are, therefore, not necessary. However, the said form of work valorization is applicable only to self-employed entrepreneurs and management of the associated labour in the economy.  

In direct production of commodities, the volume of realized and envisaged quantity of products and services may establish productivity. Where productivity cannot be exactly expressed by the quantity of products and services or where establishment of the quantity would be time-consuming, assessment of indirect work value will be introduced.  

The grades for workers' operating results may be given by managers, the managing board and by workers among themselves. Managing boards in enterprises will monitor the important improvements of the operation of workers and enterprises, as well as the significant damages that the workers and enterprises may cause. Their grades will objectively show the bad work of the workers as well as any improvement in operation. Further, the workers know best among them the quality of each worker. Each worker may be entitled to grade the work of several other workers as a response to the envisaged productivity of each worker.  

The grade received will be a confirmation or negation of the envisaged grade that each worker has given to themselves as an offer of their future productivity. The proposed subjective grade of a worker's productivity will get its objective confirmation or negation, which will influence the development of objective value categories in production.  

Work valorization is necessary not only for establishing the accountability of workers for the realized productivity, but also as determination that defines recognition of the individual's essential powers. The individual needs an objective scale of values in order to get to know themselves objectively, as well as the possibility of their own upgrading.  

The coefficient of realized productivity that realizes the value higher than 1(one) will represent the productivity realized in a volume larger than envisaged, and will also realize a higher income. And vice-versa, the coefficient of realized productivity smaller than 1(one) will represent the productivity realized in a volume smaller than envisaged, and income will also be smaller.  


Responsibility of Workers  

Without a defined method of bearing responsibility, workers would not be bound to implement their proposed productivity. In this way, their declarations in favour of the work competition would be exaggerated, and operating results could not follow them.  

It is necessary to set up a system by which every worker will bear responsibility for the realization of their envisaged productivity. It needs to be based on the coefficient of realized productivity. The system of responsibility bearing needs to be thorough, multi-layered and efficient.  

Each worker needs to bear responsibility for their work, and since their work is non-alienable from the work of the collective, they thus also bear responsibility for the productivity of the collective. The level of responsibility assumed by a worker may be set by the coefficient of responsibility.  

Let it be assumed that the average coefficient of responsibility gets the value of 1 (one). Let it be assumed that the interval between the minimal and maximal responsibility is 0.1 to 10. The responsibility set by the value equal to 0.1 would be the minimum, and that set by number 10 would be the maximum responsibility. Enterprises may set a separate minimal coefficient of responsibility for each individual work post.  

Let each worker set the level of their responsibility that they may assume for their work and for the work of the collective expressed by the coefficient. Such responsibility must be at least the same or higher than the minimally established responsibility for a concrete work post. A higher coefficient of responsibility needs to render a higher work competitiveness in the work market for performing work at every public work post, and vice-versa.  

The coefficient of responsibility will have to reflect the distribution of incomes. Less responsibility assumed will mathematically reduce the impact of the realized and foreseen productivity on the level of income. On the other hand, a worker who offers a greater responsibility will realize a higher income than the worker offering less responsibility in the case of equally good business operation. And vice versa, such a worker will realize an income smaller than that of their rival in the case of equally bad business performance. As each work leaves in some form, a lasting consequence on the society, the coefficient of responsibility will also need to influence the value of past labour through past labour points.  

The total gross quantity of past labour points of all workers in the commune needs to be equal to the realized cash profit of the commune. With the rise in productivity in the economy, workers will also realize a larger cash profit, and will thereby also acquire a larger quantity of past labour points for distribution. And vice-versa, when losses occur in the economy the workers lose past labour points.  

Economic enterprises that realize a rise in productivity will realize a surplus of cash assets. They will distribute that surplus to workers in the form of past labour points, proportionately to their coefficient of responsibility. If the envisaged and necessary productivity are equal, there will be no change in the quantity of past labour points of workers. And finally, if the difference of the quoted productivities shows a loss of money, the difference will be deducted from the past labour points of all workers of an enterprise, proportionately to the coefficient of responsibility.  

Enterprises in non-profit sectors, such as administration, possibly health care, education and other activities proclaimed as such by the commune through its leaders and the assembly, do not realize direct income in the market. Instead, they realize it on the basis of appropriations from the commune’s revenue.  

In non-profit companies, the measure of the operating result value needs to be based on realized productivity in the function of the quantity and quality of operating results. The work quality needs to be expressed by a satisfaction evaluation form of the service user. A higher grade received from the service user will be equivalent to a higher cash profit of economic enterprises. In this way, non-profit companies will have a measure for productivity of, and responsibility for the business activity.  

The system needs to fully equalize the measure of success in the business activity of profit and non-profit companies. By applying mathematical coefficients, it is possible to compare the revenue of the profit economy and the realized productivity of the non-profit companies expressed in any magnitude, including the assessment of productivity.

All unemployed inhabitants will also have some sort of a C-responsibility set by leaders and adopted by the assembly of the commune. They can, on this basis, receive or lose past labour points but in a smaller quantity than workers in production. In this way, the entire population of the commune will bear responsibility for the commune's productivity.  

Since the production or, more precisely, the cash profit in the market may show oscillations in the periods of accounting, collective responsibility by way of past labour points needs to be linked with the period when the business activity of an enterprise shows objective indicators of success. The accounting period may be different for different activities; however, it may be considered that productivity that shows smaller or larger oscillations in monthly accountings will in a period of one year give a real account of productivity.  

Once the quantity of past labour points that each enterprise realize or lose as a whole is known, then distribution or deduction of these points will be carried out proportionately to the coefficients of responsibility of workers. By applying the computer technology in the period of accounting, the distribution of past labour points as well as their deduction can be quickly and simply calculated for an unlimited number of workers by the formula:


Worker-1 : Worker-2 : Worker-3 : …. : Worker-n =

C-respons.-1 : C-respons.-2 : C-respons.-3 : ….  : C-respons.-n   


Then computer technology can quickly and easily produce the results in the form of: 


Worker-1 = +/- Quantity of Points-1,

Worker-2 = +/- Quantity of Points-2,

Worker-3 = +/- Quantity of Points-3,


Worker-n = +/- Quantity of Points-n 


The obtained values are different magnitudes expressed in past labour points that are added to (or deducted from) the quantities of past labour points held by workers. 

Example:  A worker who stated a coefficient of responsibility of 1.5 will realize on account of the responsibility function a gain of past labour points three times larger than the worker who stated a coefficient of responsibility of 0.5 in the case of a rise in profit of the enterprise, and a three times larger loss of the past labour points in the case of losses of the enterprise.  

In the proposed system, each worker bears responsibility for the work of the collective proportionately to the stated size of the coefficient of responsibility. In this way, workers become active creators of their own conveniences and inconveniences, and are no longer passive collective members. Such responsibility will require that workers become familiar with the consequences of doing business, which will largely contribute to overcoming alienation in the process of production.  

In the capitalistic form of production, a larger profit is as a general rule related with a higher risk of investing money. The new system introduces C-responsibilities with which the workers can, according to their own will, speculate the risk assumed for the success of the collective production. However, such speculation is non-alienable from the direct work of the workers, which will contribute to the rise of direct responsibility in production. A higher responsibility requires a higher degree of mutual confidence, community, which will result in a larger productivity and prosperity of society. The higher degree of responsibility will be formed by workers who are more familiar with the flows of business, who have more confidence in themselves and in the collective as a whole.  


So far the individual participation of workers in collective responsibility has been described. Now what needs to be defined is the individual responsibility of workers in the process of production. Workers individually might produce benefits or damages in the collective process of production. In order to create a productive orientation of society it will be necessary to define within the production process a principle of remunerating and sanctioning the workers by a certain number of past labour points. Such remunerating and sanctioning needs to be carried out by arbitration commission of the company in accordance with the accepted company regulation.  

An enterprise’s management may also make the assessment of whether a certain work is successful or harmful. However, mutual assessment by workers is perhaps the best way for establishing individual responsibility. Mutual assessment of the work would reward the good workers and sanctions the bad in the function of the proposed coefficient of responsibility. Let it be assumed that each positive assessment brings the worker past labour points in the quantity of the autonomously stated coefficient of responsibility. And vice-versa, let it be assumed that each negative assessment deducts past labour points to the worker in the function of the autonomously stated coefficient of responsibility.  

Such a system of assessing the work value and of bearing responsibility represents in the broadest sense all influences that the work brings along. It may reward each convenience and sanction each inconvenience that a worker inflicts to another worker or to the community in its entirety. Each worker will care to not inflict by their activity, or to inflict as little as possible, inconvenience to any other individual and to bring to every individual as much convenience as possible. This will represent the substance of a productive social orientation that will promote inter-personal relations.  

Example: Let us assume arbitrarily that the average income in the commune is 100,000 monetary units. In that case, the average quantity of past labour points is 100,000 points. If a worker cannot assume a great responsibility for their work, they will opt for a small coefficient of responsibility. If they propose their own coefficient of responsibility at the level of 0,1, one positive vote would then bring them 0,1 point, and five negative votes -0,5 point. Then in the first case, the worker with the average quantity of past labour points will have 100,000.1, and in second case 99,999.5 points.  

A worker wishing to increase their work competitiveness must also increase their coefficient of responsibility. The coefficient of responsibility of 1,2 will bring 12 points to the worker who gets ten positive votes. If the same worker has 100,000 past labour income points, they will have 100.012 points after the assessment. If they, instead, get 20 negative votes, 24 points will be deducted, and will thus after that have in total 99.976 income points. As accounting is done on a monthly basis, such a system will require a highly responsible work. I have to repeat that the examples are fully arbitrary and that implementation of such measures in practice will require a broad study and social acceptability.  


There is no doubt that in such a system each worker will be cautious before stating their own productivity and degree of responsibility. Such cautiousness will prevent hasty statements and voluntarism. The system will allow each worker to get to know their own capacity, to act in accordance with their own capacity and thus meet their own needs. Such an act is a precondition for a constructive orientation of the society as a whole.  

Responsibility is some sort of fear of inconveniences. The fear of inconveniences gives the individual a driving force that is a condition for reaching a convenience. When an inconvenience is unreachable, it is hard to find a reason for someone to set into action, because where there is no possibility for inconveniences to occur there may not be conveniences, either.  

The system protects nobody against malevolent voting. Therefore, anomalies are possible on the occasion of voting, which cannot be a rule, because such a society would tend to its own destruction. Generally, the workers bringing more conveniences to the society will profiteer, and those creating major inconveniences will lose.  

Authoritative managers are most exposed to particularly unfavourable expressions of views. Therefore, one may expect their withdrawal in favour of cooperative managers who will take into account remarks coming from the workers, who will seek for the most favourable solutions for doing business and direct, on the basis of collective agreements, the economic activity. 

The unemployed population also bears responsibility for their activity; however, the coefficient of responsibility is set by the commune's leadership. This degree of responsibility may be lower than the responsibility for production, however, sufficient so as that all inhabitants of the commune behave with respect vis-à-vis their environment. This means that the unemployed population, if bringing conveniences by its activity, may also be rewarded by an individual community member by way of adding income-based points equal to the level of the community's coefficient of responsibility, and vice-versa. In this way, the entire population of the commune mutually rewards conveniences and sanctions inconveniences.  

Once the annual accounting is complete, total gross quantity of past labour points of all workers needs to be equal to the average periodical profit of the economy in the commune. After all additions and deductions of past labour points relating to individual responsibility of all inhabitants, it is necessary to carry out the settlement of the total quantity of past labour points of all workers and of the realized profit of the commune. The final settlement might be effected proportionately to the quantity of past labour points of the population in the same manner as awards and penalties of workers are calculated in companies.


Current Labour Price 

Finally, it is the price of current labour that forms the competitive power in selecting the work. The current labour price depends on all conveniences and inconveniences that the work brings in realizing the necessary productivity in relation to the conveniences and inconveniences of other forms of work or from outside of work.

The system envisages that workers set by themselves the current labour price by a coefficient within a value range of two numbers that may be from 0.1 to 10. The price of average current labour will have the value of 1(one); a work twice as inconvenient will have the price equal to number 2, while the work twice as convenient will have a price of 0.5.  

A worker who seeks a lower current labour price on the labour market for equal productivity will realize greater work competitiveness. The system of work competition will for each work post set a limit value of the current labour price, which will be accepted as objective by the society. Such a current labour price will exert impact on the creation of an objective system of income distribution, which will overcome the hitherto unsolved problems of income distribution in the associated labour.     

When a worker has no possibility of work selection they must accept work conditions irrespective of how much they suit to them. In such cases work is a coercion that brings inconveniences to the society. The new system allows every worker to find the work that brings them greater individual conveniences, whereby the work, while lasting, may become a value that promotes the society in any respect.  

In the case that the work becomes a value, a worker holding a larger quantity of past labour income-based points will be able, in order to increase the competitive power, to reduce the current labour price because their income will still be sufficiently high. A worker with a smaller value of past labour will withdraw, because their income would be too small.  

On the other hand, if a worker aspires for greater conveniences in the operating result, they will seek less valuable forms of work or, more precisely, less convenient works that will allow a higher current labour price, and will realize a higher income. Less convenient forms of work will be presented by a high current labour price. Such a price will form an expensive work and, therefore, management will be gradually phasing it out by introducing automation, or by redistributing the work.   


Achieved results

No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job and who, for their productivity, bears responsibility to the collective. Therefore, public companies will easily become significantly more productive and more profitable than the private ones. The owners of private companies, under the competitive pressures of public companies, will try to increase their productivity in a similar way as public companies, but they could not go far enough because they simply would not have the operational capabilities to oppose the public companies. Specifically, private entrepreneurs would not be able to accept the participation of workers in decision-making and profit sharing processes of the company, because in that case they would no longer be able to gain any advantage in their own companies in relation to the workers. What is private ownership for then? Given that workers in private companies would not have the freedom as offered with employment in public companies, and could not participate in sharing the profits, they will be less interested in working for private companies.

I believe that already at the beginning of the implementation, man private companies in the region will voluntarily join the new system. Owners of private companies will get the equivalent value that presents their productive power, in the values of past labour points. In addition, owners of private companies will find out that large companies will be more stable to conjuncture changes which will ensure a greater stability of the economy and the values they possess. If the owners of private companies today would have the chance to join such a company, they would most likely do so, because it would preserve more of their capital values in the frequent crises of capitalism.


Work competition allows each individual to provide for optimal conveniences. In such a system all work posts will be equally sought because the conveniences and inconveniences brought by the work will be balanced. This type of balance is a precondition for the balance of the society as a whole.

The system gives the right to anyone wishing to work, and this means that the inconvenient form of unemployment, as is possible in the present-day socio-economic systems, cannot exist. The social dissatisfaction with the work and income distribution that in the classical system of business operation is solved with strikes and individual riots, cannot exist in the system of this kind.

The new system will require a higher degree of a more universal education based on the development of skills to handle information. The new system will organize courses for each form of activity immediately upon the appearance of interested candidates. Also, the society needs to ensure to everybody a specialized highly complex education to the extent to which each individual will have a need for in performing the desired activity.

The education system presents how big changes are coming as well.  Teachers will work hard to satisfy interests of students because students will evaluate their work. On the other hand, teachers will no longer need to evaluate students because students will later through their work be evaluated by society no matter what they choose to do. School will no longer be a guarantee for acquired knowledge but only a place for acquiring knowledge. I wrote more about that in My clash with science.  

In more complex work forms, such as managing functions, justice functions, specialist work, a candidate will first have to undergo a selection and be elected by the managing boards of the enterprise or by the commune. On all other work posts the employment technique will be very simple. Management decides whether productivity is limited or not on a certain work post, and give the minimal C-of work responsibility. Candidates then give their offers.

A worker who offers a larger productivity, a higher degree of responsibility and a lower price of current labour gets the highest value of the C-work competition and, therefore, exercises the right to work at a certain work post. This means that they can also take the work post of an employed worker if the employed worker cannot, or does not wish to, accept the competitive conditions expressed by the value of the C-work competition. The employed worker at such work post may be given a short time-frame in which to respond whether they can and wish to assume a larger productivity, responsibility or a lower current labour price. If they accept, they continue to work at their work place, however, under new conditions.

A worker who cannot accept the competitive conditions leaves their work post. Such a worker is recognized to have met all their obligations in such a work post. They exercise the right to periodical distribution of past labour points, as if they have realized the envisaged productivity. The income of such a worker will gradually decrease because the price of their work will fall until they find a new work post, at which point the income will start gradually rising again. Hence, the worker leaving their work post is protected in terms of income, so that temporary unemployment will not produce to them any significant material inconveniences. The loss of a job in such a system would not represent, either, a great essential inconvenience because each and every worker can autonomously and over a short time find a new job where they would, according to their own skills, realize a greater productivity and convenience.

For the purpose of realizing a steady continued business operation, the society needs to oblige the worker losing the work post a new responsibility of making their competitor familiar with all work obligations. A new coming worker takes over all work obligations of their predecessor, and adds new ones. They assume the responsibility to accomplish the existing productivity of the previous worker, as well as the offered rise in productivity; however, they get remuneration in the form of past labour income-based points only for own rise in productivity.


The concept of power is in the present-day society considerably alienated because an individual has throughout their lifetime lived oppressed by authoritative forces. That has brought to them an intensified feeling of inferiority and creates, as a reaction, a need for superiority. The individual of today has an interest in any form of affirmation through competitions in sports, culture, possession of money, etc. Being a winner represents a great value to the individual, because it is precisely there where their power is manifested and proved. Victory compensates the subjective experience of impotence.

Work competition eliminates the privileges in work, and this also means all inconveniences in the society that the privileges create. Work competition represents a permanent struggle for the realization of larger productivity. This is the struggle allowing any worker to be the best in their segment of acting. It will be a form of recognition, a possibility for the individual to compensate the impotency caused by authoritative influences, to become aware of their vitality, of their own powers. The individual would permanently see such recognition reflected in the eyes of the society.

There is no doubt that competition in work is more acceptable than all other forms of competition because it brings, inter alia, socially beneficial operating results. Workers who will considerably develop egoistic trait will be greedy in the field of work, and this negative character feature will contribute to larger productivity and, accordingly, to a larger welfare of society.

The means of production find their major justification if they are in the hands of the best workers. Work competition may ensure a much larger productivity than the capitalistic form of business operation, which will ensure an abundance of commodities and services.

The work competition will not allow anyone to sit back on their laurels. As time passes, a fatigue and saturation with the excessive acting in a broad social sense may be expected and, consequently, the ambitions will grow weary. Such an orientation will form a natural balance between the individual's natural needs and possibilities. This would inevitably lead to objective acceptance of the proper limitation of each individual and to the respect of each individual for another individual.

Work competition is not to be understood as an elementary power where the workers will endanger the work posts of other workers to an extent greater than needed in productive terms. This assertion is primarily based on the fact that everyone will have the survival and the right to work ensured. Moreover, the work competition will contribute to the creation of a balanced relation of the work conveniences and inconveniences on all work posts. Therefore, there will be no excessive need for a change of work posts.

It has already been said that the newly arrived worker also assumes responsibility for the realization of the existing work obligations of the worker who was pushed away, which may be very risky. They will be able to decrease their C-of responsibility irrespective of whether the enterprise they work in operates well or not, and whether the same work suits them or not. Further, the worker commits to stay at a certain work post for a definite period of time. In that period, they will not be allowed to compete for new work posts unless they are willing to pay a penalty in income-based points for early leave. Moreover, a worker who willingly leaves their work post cannot be relieved of the responsibility for the envisaged productivity they offered for the determined period of time.

And finally, any worker who takes the work post of another worker may assume that this will be inconvenient for the other worker, and possibly to their coworkers or customers so that they may over a longer period of time assess them negatively, which will have a negative impact on income and the quantity of past labour points such a worker holds. In this regard, each worker will think well before taking up somebody else’s work post.

Changes of work posts among workers will only be to the extent that allows the individuals and the society in general to accomplish optimal conveniences. If an individual worker decides to win the right to the work post of another worker, this will primarily be for the reason that they will be performing that work in a significantly more productive way so that the society will also realize major conveniences, or the work will be considerably more convenient to them and, therefore, cheaper for the society. A less productive worker will calmly withdraw with respect, and seek another job. Where respect exists, there is no conflict because bravery and capability always respect one another.

Authoritative relationships in such a form of production would sooner or later be markedly non-productive. Productive work will be based on the principle of mutual equality, agreement and confidence among workers. It may be assumed that the workers in the system of work competition will mutually respect and assist one another. The relationship between the management and workers will be built on mutual confidence and community, which will develop full equality and abolish the differences between mental and physical work.

It may be assumed that in such a system the change of work posts will mostly be carried out by an agreed-upon exchange of work posts among workers. This agreement will not be made among privileged people any more but among productive people’s powers. Workers will make mutual agreements about needed productivity, prices of works, and responsibilities but they will not be able to do it on the expense of other workers as is very common today, because everyone will be able to breach unethical agreements. In such a way the system will ensure its productive orientation in every segment of the production processes. Besides that, the agreement will push the competition out, which will contribute to the disalienation of the society and to the creation of harmonious social relations.

With the work competition in place, all workers are on an equal position on the occasion of work division and, accordingly, of the distribution of the operating result. As not a single work will be privileged any longer, the system of work competition will contribute to the formation of objective values in production. Abolished privileges break down the power of individual over individual or, to say it more precisely, the mechanism of one individual's exploitation of another individual. Abolished privileges will be pushing out the narcissistic character of workers and thus overcome the subjective alienated idea of the conveniences and inconveniences in the society.

Freedom in the system of work competition will allow the workers to monitor and control work processes with interest, develop a critical attitude and act by relying on their own forces. That road will allow each worker to examine the validity of the premises that guided them in forming the needs.

Assuming that the work competition will ensure an abundance of the means of consumption that will, once saturated, lose its necessity, the work in such circumstances need no longer be the basic means for ensuring the existence, but the means for materialization of the individual's natural and essential creative forces.

Such changes allow the individual to come closer to their nature, to find the values arising from the individual, from their natural sensitivity and contemplativeness - the values that would allow the individual to live by natural rhythm, to find their own balance and conveniences. The system will contribute to the destruction of the subjectively narcissistic vision of the reality of individuals, which will allow the overcoming of the individual’s alienation from nature, from another individual and from themselves.

In such a system the individual will accept their own impotency where they cannot surmount it and will discover fields where they can objectively manifest their power and thus satisfy their needs. An individual who constantly meets their needs is not destructive and this is the reason why the system will overcome destructive phenomena in society. In this way, the complete population of the commune is included in the system of responsible living.

Such a system will overcome the individual's destructive orientation directed to themselves in the form of depression, neurosis, psychosis, alcoholism, drug addition, masochism, self-destruction, and all forms of inconvenient phenomena. Also destructiveness toward nature and the society in the form of sadism, aggression, and any form of destruction will be overcome.

Such a system will enable a constructive orientation of the individual, and only then can the individual believe in prosperity, based on productivity, solidarity, mutuality. Only then can the individual believe in peace, love, the joy of living.

Only then will society form a constructive attitude toward the young. Such an attitude will no longer be authoritative for the reason that not a single individual in the society will be subjugated to authoritative forces, and will thus have no model for such attitude vis-à-vis the young. It may be supposed that such a society will form a natural mode of living, with natural needs. It means that the population will desist from alienated ambitions in favour of creating a sound relationship in the society. The relationship will be formed in which adults will respect the young, and in which mutual contradictions will be solved by agreement. The relationship will be created that will allow the individual to develop correctly from the very beginning. Only at that point in time will the society be able to find its own long-term constructive orientation.


Back to Top

Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada            Last updated: November 13, 2013
For problems, questions, or comments regarding the website please contact