Humanism for Dummies

Nobody knows how a good society is actually supposed to look like. We are all dummies in it. I have refused to be the dummy and therefore have tried hard to define a human society. 

Humanism necessarily requires freedom. A free man is supposed to decide on everything he wants, but his exercise of freedom must not deprive other individuals of their liberties. Freedom gives people a choice to choose their needs and to satisfy them. Freedom fulfils people’s reason for being and gives them a chance to be happy. 

Are we free? 

The level of freedom depends on the development of society. Our freedom is not necessarily on a low-level today but indeed is not developed enough either. Politically, our liberty ends right after voting for representatives in councils, assemblies, or parliaments. Once they are elected, authorities tend not to like democracy. The chosen people may prevent us from our freedom, make us powerless and unhappy, and exploit us. We cannot do anything to oppose them besides waiting for years to replace them at new elections. 

What is even worse, those who rule society become models to all other authorities in society. As a result, our bosses, teachers, parents, and all other authorities take power in the fields of their activities. Ruling power brings great conveniences so that men work hard to make any kind of control or influence over other people. Everyone accomplishes larger or smaller success in this field. They all prevent other people from developing themselves freely. In such a society people tend to hate each other which make destructive relationships in the community. I have suffered a lot under these kinds of problems, and that is the reason why I have decided to find a solution that will bring freedom to the people.

May direct democracy give a satisfactory solution? 

Some people propose that we skip authorities and by the help from computer technology make consensus and/or direct decisions about all the issues concerning our interests. Performing consensuses and direct democracy is a good idea, but it cannot be successful enough alone. Firstly, such decision-making is difficult and very time consuming to give a good enough result. Secondly, influential people do not like democracy and especially not a direct democracy; therefore, they would find a solution to prevent it. Thirdly, making decisions requires a certain level of knowledge, and one could not expect all of the people having it. Also, each society needs to make a practically unlimited number of decisions, and no one has enough time and probably neither desire to participate in all of them. Besides that, democracy is not a perfect solution because it enforces the wish of the majority to the needs of minority and therefore it may take the freedom away from the opposition. Finally, even if democracy solves all these problems, there is not a theory that may effectively protect individuals in society from the ruling power of other people. 

So what we are going to do?   

Let’s leave the rights of making decisions to authorities when they are required to do them. They may also freely increase their responsibilities, but then let’s make them directly responsible for their doings towards everyone all the time.  

How?   

Let each man get an equal right to evaluate other people. This right will give power to each person to provide a total of one positive and one negative evaluation (it could be more) let's say monthly. That means the people will actually evaluate only the behaviour of the best and worst person in their opinion. Let each positive assessment automatically bring some award to the positively assessed person and let any negative assessment results in the same form of punishment. The people will directly determine the value of these awards and fines. We may assume that the evaluation power might be one dollar, but it could be smaller or bigger. 

What would the evaluation bring to society?   

There would not be rules about people’s evaluation of other people so that it would present a sort of anarchy. The assessment would require people to respect each other and to be very careful with other people no matter what they are doing. It will direct each member of society to create maximal possible advantages for community and to diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. In other words, nobody would dare to oppress other people anymore or prevent them from having their freedom. That will make us human. Today we do not evaluate humanity, and that is a reason we do not have it. When we start to assess humanity, humanity will become a recognized value and society will become significantly better. This is quite simple. 

The number of evaluations that individuals will give to other people will be limited. Meaning, ordinary people would not be evaluated much. Most of the assessments would be given to people with extraordinarily positive or negative behaviour and authorities. That would force authorities to make the best possible decisions for society. The higher authorities would receive more evaluations, and that would make them more responsible. Presidents of countries may, for example, receive millions of positive and negative assessments each month so that they would gain or would have to pay millions of dollars each month as a result of their work. That would, for the first time, really establish their responsibilities before the people. That will also make authorities start loving democracy. From now on, they will undoubtedly ask the people what they want, and then they will make decisions to satisfy their needs. They would even work hard to find consensuses among the people about all decisions concerning their interests. Authorities who would not be able to make good choices would leave their positions fast, and only the best would remain. The evaluations will bring considerable benefits to society and a much better future of mankind. 

Are we capable of evaluating other people?   

I believe the people are generally pretty much capable of making sound judgements about other people and evaluating them objectively. The life in such an environment will teach everyone to be more objective. However, dear reader, you may be very concerned about the capability of other people to objectively evaluate you. In such a case the awards and penalties of evaluations may be reduced down or eliminated. Even a formal assessment might bring good results. Besides that, I believe you dear reader, would like to evaluate other people but you cannot expect it if you do not give a chance to other people to assess you. We all need to sacrifice a little to get much, much more. When the system, by its practice, wins your confidence about the evaluation then the influence of assessments may grow, and that would bring excellent results.  

What’s wrong with the division of work today?  

I have had a lot of problems with today's established principles of work division. As a young man, I have believed to be able to make “miracles” with my work but did not get a chance to show it. I was especially disappointed with the publicly owned companies that dominated in the country I lived in that time. Public companies were supposed to follow the interests of the people, but they were not successful enough in it. I asked myself why only presidents of countries faced democratic approval for their work at elections every couple of years, and most other public workers do not? Does it mean that the workers in public companies are allowed to be privileged and non-productive authorities at their work posts? 

The work in publicly owned companies generally is more pleasant than the ones in private companies. Besides that, it also provides more decent and secure incomes and privileges than workers in private companies have. Once taken, such work placements are pretty much protected, and unless they are vacant, there is no way other people may have them. That is just not fair to the people who do not have jobs but also to those who do not have good jobs. Freedom of choosing work is not developed anywhere; it barely exists. Most people spend almost one-third of their lives doing the jobs they do not like because they do not have other choices. The lack of freedom for choosing the work is that which really makes our lives miserable. Also, the privileged work positions do not give enough challenge to workers, so they are often bored at work. As a general result, they are not productive enough which makes losses to the whole society. What is even worse, privileged work positions are starting points of oppression inside society and nests for all kinds of corruption which bring huge negativities to society. 

So what is the solution?   

The already mentioned system of evaluation among the people will largely contribute to solving such problems in the division of work, but besides that, it will be necessary to increase the movement of workers and possibilities for changing work posts. Each man has to have a chance not only to work but also to work what he likes. The first can be accomplished by shortening the work hours proportionately to the unemployment rate. The second can be realized by opening the competition for each public work post all the time. Each job in publicly owned companies should go to the worker who proposes the best productivity any time. It sounds impossible, and I received such comments since the beginning of my work, but nothing is impossible here, it’s only about creating a good system.   

Well, that measure requires much more income securities than any existing system offers. Everyone would receive some income. The income height would depend on the value of the past work, on the price of the present work, on the performed productivity, and on the needs of society. Besides the income compensation, it will also be necessary to create a valid regulation of work productivities and work responsibilities that would be acceptable to all.  To achieve this goal an entirely new economy needs to be built. 

What would we get?   

Workers would be able to get the jobs they like. That would enrich their power of being and bring them huge conveniences from work itself. This will make work start becoming a value itself which is a considerable benefit almost non-existent today. 

Also, that kind of work division will bring the best production performance possible, that the capitalist production would not be able to follow. Private companies would lose the productivity battle with public ones and therefore will be forced to withdraw. The owners of private means of production will be justly compensated for their ownership so that they would join the public system of production voluntarily. 

In case the productivity of production is limited, the worker who asks for the lower price of the present work will get the job. The cost of the current work is one of the factors that determine the incomes height. Better jobs will achieve lower prices of the present work and therefore more moderate incomes, and vice versa. The market price of the current work will establish the righteousness in the process of production and distribution. All of the workers will be satisfied with their earnings, and all the jobs will become equally desirable to workers. Isn't such a benefit unthinkable today? 

Last but not the least, the new system will establish substantial work responsibilities of workers so that the relationships in the process of production will have to be based on a high level of cooperation among the workers and that will contribute to the establishment of harmonious relations in society.  

What would we lose?   

We would lose the chance to keep our work positions forever, but that would not include the fear for our economic survival anymore. In the new system, there would not be an objective need for keeping work positions forever. This is mainly an alienated narcissistic need. Narcissism in us is the prime creator of unhappiness and destructiveness in the developed world. The new system will help us realize it, and then the new values that the new system offers would liberate us from the narcissistic opinions about our privileged positions. That would release us from unhappiness and destructiveness we might carry in ourselves and therefore from unhappiness and destructiveness in society. That is indeed worth losing.  

The system will release us from oppression inside society, from all kinds of corruption, and from all of the negativities they bring. Also, it will liberate us from the opinion that happiness is somewhere else, which is very developed in societies without enough freedom. It will show us that happiness lies in ourselves and will teach us how to find it and how to control it. 

Why wouldn’t we accept these ideas?   

The basis of the political and economic model described above would improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. In general, this system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experiences will demystify the values imposed by authorities and will teach people to live following their proper nature which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristics of present-day society. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the final prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their demands are not destructive. The proposed system promises a beautiful life and natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.     

The new ideas will turn everything you are used to in your life upside-down, and that certainly brings the acceptance problem. However, there is no reason for refusing these ideas out of inability to understand the scope of benefits they will bring to everyone and out of fear that comes from this misunderstanding. Right from the beginning, I was confident that these simple ideas would one day completely change the world and make Paradise on Earth. To prove it I have been developing these ideas for the last 20 years. The system I have finally created is the condition sine qua non on any great future of humankind. It is presented in the 131 paged book, “The Humanism” available free of charge here. The book clearly shows the bright future of, and you should read it.

 Back to Top