3.1.1   Basic Policies of Humanism  

Direct Democracy  

Let the basic socio-political economic community be the commune. Let the commune include the territory of the smallest social whole able to exist relatively autonomously, or of the largest social whole offering a satisfactory insight into joint activities. It may be assumed that a commune has from 100,000 up to 1,000,000 inhabitants, but it may also relate to a small community with several inhabitants associated on a territorial basis up to, theoretically, associated inhabitants of the entire world.  

The commune is a part of a region, monarchy, republic or federation of associated republics and is, therefore, bound to respect the collective laws and the Constitution. The commune has the right to autonomy, to the extent permissible by federal laws. It is necessary to suppose here the positive orientation of the society. This means that the state will allow autonomy of the commune to the extent that will allow optimal development of the society. The commune organizes itself its internal order. The commune needs to have an administration consisting of an assembly or council, a legislative and an executive body.  

The commune's assembly or council consists of the political parties' representatives or of the delegates of the society elected in elections, according to the electoral determination of the society. The assembly will no longer have the task of making decisions in the name of the society. Instead, it will have to establish the issues on which the people need to decide directly by referendum, and to prepare and carry out the referendum. The assembly would be bound to realize the issues submitted to direct vote in referendum by a sort of consensus of the political parties or delegates in order to protect the will of the minority.  

All important decisions in the society need to be made by a new form of referendum of the commune's population, which will in terms of its structure be similar to the voting of shareholders of capitalistic corporations, but with some humanistic changes. In this way, the highest authority in power or, more precisely, the legislative body would no longer be the assembly but the society as a whole, which will certainly represent a higher form of democracy.  

All democratic systems of today are proclaiming democratic equality among peoples. The practice shows that those under the age of 18 have no democratic rights, while those older have the democratic right only formally as they decide on nothing in practice. In practice, the powerful rule the society independently.  

Formal equality of democratic rights would need to be replaced by a system to be formed by the factual democratic right of individuals, based on the value of past labor of each individual, including their predecessors. In other words, let each man get the decision-making right in the society proportionately to his own together with his predecessors' contribution to the creation of all values the society possesses. The criteria for establishing the decision-making power in the society would include all forms of values the current society accepts, such as ownership of real estate, companies, shares, money, but also the education, work and its performance, scientific, cultural, sports and other achievements of individuals.  

Let us present the value of the past labor, meaning the voting power of individuals, by a numeric value called the voting past labor points. All values that can be expressed in money can also be easily shown in the past labor points. Private owners of material goods get in full the quantity of the voting past labor points, or voting power, equal to the value of their property. A person having a more valuable past labor will get more voting past labor points and will exercise a greater voting right, and vice versa. As a general rule, ownership of real estates of higher values was realized by a larger inconvenient past labor.  Such labor contributed more to development of society and therefore justly receives a larger quantity of the voting past labor points, and a larger voting power in the society. Needless to say, that a part of the value of ownership of real estates frequently occurred as a product of exploitation of the society members. However, such a state of affairs is in most social systems legalized and needs, therefore, to be accepted as such.

The people without any private ownership will exercise the voting right to the extent to which they contributed to the creation of the values in collective ownership of the commune's population. Each commune possess the material values owned by the society, such as enterprises, land, facilities, communication roads, infrastructure, natural resources, labor force, etc. It will be necessary to evaluate the total value of the collective ownership of the population in the commune and establish its counter-value in the voting past labor points.  

Total value of the collective material wealth expressed in voting past labor points will then have to be distributed to the social commune members according to a jointly agreed upon and accepted principle. The criteria for establishing the power of each voter will need to be set by means of a comprehensive study that will valorize all possible types of the contribution to the building of the present-day society. Such criteria will have to be set by an expert commission, and approved by the assembly delegates by consensus. It is most likely that it will not be easy to establish such a consensus; however, it could be a success after several corrections. In the end, the society will in referendum decide by significant majority whether it would accept or not the rules for such distribution. The solution to be obtained, no matter how it might seem as inconvenient to an individual or a group, will represent a big step forward to each individual and, naturally, to the society as a whole.  

Let the voting power arising from collective ownership be distributed lineally to the commune members in the following manner: let a certain quantity of the voting past labor points be exercised by birth. The work the man performs by creating himself brings the maximum perfection that the man can perform, brings the highest value the man can create for himself and for another man. The rise in the voting power expressed by a certain quantity of voting past labor points will further have to be lineally achieved by the age length, the years of service, education and all other agreed upon criteria that were permanently improving the man, the society and nature. Distribution of the voting past labor points can be designed in such a manner so as to have a stimulating effect on the realization of social needs.  

In the case of the fall in birth rate, parents with several children may be allocated a larger quantity of the voting past labor points, and such measure would stimulate a rise of the birth rate. Conversely, in the case of an excessive birth rate of children could be sanctioned by taking away a certain number of the voting past labor points from the parents.  

The rise of the quantity of the voting past labor points among the population of a commune needs to be based on individuals' activities that promote the man and the society on a lasting basis. This measure in the first place relates to the production where any work improving the productivity would be rewarded. A certain quantity of the voting past labor points may also be allocated to independent creators as a token of recognition for the scientific, cultural, sports or other achievements. This would stimulate the non-economic creative work as a contribution to the development of the society. The allocation of this type would be carried out by evaluation courts and arbitration commissions on the basis of valorization of the creative accomplishments and benefits the society enjoys from them. On the other hand, individuals who commit inconveniences to society such as crime for example, will be punished by taking away an appropriate quantity of the voting past labor points by the same courts. That will be an additional measure for the enforcement of productive orientation of the society. 

The unequal voting right is presently a factual state because the rich mostly decide independently in the name of the society and, therefore, it has to be legalized in order to contribute to a gradual development of democracy. The citizens more meritorious for the making of everything the society presently has will have a proportionately stronger power of decision-making. For example, a man holding ten times larger quantity of the voting past labor points will have the voting power ten times stronger. However, it should be said that the differences between voting powers among the people will be pretty much formal because nobody will be able to interfere significantly in democratic process without matter what voting power possesses where millions of people make decisions. 

However, the system will for the first time leave room to other people to participate directly in the making of decisions of joint interest. They will finally get a sort of real decision-making power. Associated with other citizens they will oppose more efficiently to the will of the present-day rich.  

The system will objectively show the voting power of each individual, which may be interpreted as well as an acceptable form of recognition to the individuals in the society. On the other hand, the people who would not be willing to compare their voting power with other people or to be compared with other people, will have the choice to keep their quantity of voting points that present their voting power in secret.

Moreover, the system will on a lasting basis ensure the voting power of individuals and may, therefore, be acceptable for the rich who, as privileged members of the society, will traditionally be the main brake on the way of development of the new system. When the rich will voluntarily accept the new distribution of the decision-making power, as some royalties accepted it in capitalism, a road to a new development of the mankind will then be opened.  

The computer technology development provided for a technical possibility of carrying out multiple referenda rapidly and easily. Referenda are possible by means of computer cards or applications that would contain the issues relating to collective movements through different points. Each point would set certain rules for collective action. The referendum system needs to be designed in such manner that small quantity of decisions would have influence into the broadest and deepest problems of the social behavior. The base of the referendum needs further to be the acceptance or rejection of a certain decision by majority of inhabitants. However, if in the decision-making system the nuances or gradations may appear, then the system will have to be formed in a manner to allow that the decision has its scale of values. Each citizen would in such scale elect the magnitude that suits him best, while the sum of statements of the commune members would in the function of their voting powers form a strategy of the collective actions. Vote processing can be simply presented by the formula that present the middle voting value per vote: 

Vote Result =   

Example: Let us assume fully arbitrarily that average gross quantity of past labour income-based points is 100,000 points. Let a voter who has for example 50,000 votes take on a prepared scale a voting value 10(ten) and a voter who has 150,000 votes take a voting value 20(twenty). Then the calculation (10x50,000+20x150,000)/(50,000+150,000) will give result 17.5. The result is proportionally closer to the voter with a stronger voting power. The result may present any unit of measure the voting is about (e.g. $, %, Kg, etc.).

Each man needs to get, irrespective of the age, the decision-making power in the society. The only prerequisite has to be the ability of the man to fill out autonomously and correctly the voting ballot, as the incorrectly filled out ballot would be rejected. The voting system would be more complex than it is today, and will require understanding of the content voted for. Theoretically, this measure will open up the possibility for the five-year olds to vote provided they know how to do it by themselves.  

The proposed system, for the first time in the history of the mankind enables all commune members to participate in the decision-making about all strategic objectives of the commune. Participation of all inhabitants in the decision-making about collective activity represents the most developed form of democracy. Such decision-making does not automatically mean that the dictions to be taken will be the best for the society. They only provide the best approach to the decision-making, while the people will by their own practice find the way that suits them best. 

Democratic Anarchy  

Democracy as a form of rule is not per se enough for establishing a sound social orientation, because the majority may be wrong. In addition, the principle according to which the majority overrules the needs of the minority is not satisfactory. In an extreme case, the majority may democratically take away the freedom, human and civil rights from the minority.  

The man needs to have the right to act freely wherever and whenever he wishes to as long as he helps the society, or as long as he does not create inconveniences to the society. In other words, the man needs to be free but also he needs to be accountable to the society for his actions. Each society has a built up legislative system that helps it to protect itself against inconvenient activity of the free man. Legislative bodies act in accordance with laws and regulations. However, if the system is unjust, then Justice is unjust. The laws created by the privileged stratum of people are as a general rule unjust. In the new system, the laws and regulations would be proposed by consensus political parties in the commune's assembly or council, and adopted by referendum by the population. The laws and regulations will in this way suit maximally to all society members.  

The legislative body of the commune will on the grounds of the adopted laws define the degree of the inconvenient activity or, more precisely, of the damage that an individual inflicts to the society, and would sanction such activity by taking away a certain quantity of the voting past labor points. The voting past labor points would impact income distribution, which would in a later stage be discussed in greater detail. In this way, the policies based on them will be highly respected.  

Bearing responsibility by means of the voting past labor points is more acceptable than inhuman sentence of imprisonment, as the man keeps his freedom and productive power in the society. One may assume that such form of sanction will be more efficient as each man will be highly interested in keeping and preserving his voting past labor points as an indicator of power in the society. The man will avoid criminal acts and infractions, which is for the present-day systems almost unachievable, since a part of the society lives in the margins so that it has nothing to lose.  

Judicial bodies may in the same way assume the function of rewarding each man who generates significant conveniences to the society, stimulating thereby the development of conveniences. However, the judicial bodies have a great deficiency in terms that their way of establishing the justice in the society is authoritative, meaning that it is to some extent alienated from the society. In addition, judicial bodies and arbitration commissions cannot judge all disputes in the society because of their potentially unlimited number.  

In an authoritative alienated society, the man can generate a huge number of inconveniences to the man without being accountable for them to anybody. In this way, inconvenient tensions are created in the society. This phenomenon is almost legalized, as one can see it in everyday life of the society. In the "developed" west, the man seeks a job thinking how to sell himself. At work, a great subordination to the company is expected as otherwise he may lose the job. As a consumer, the man is exposed to an aggressive propaganda. In day-to-day life the man has almost no possibility of protection against offences, tricks or any other form of behavior that bothers him.  

In all democratic systems there has been up to now a great problem of protecting the minority against the majority or, even more, of protecting the individuals against other people in everyday life. If we exclude the principle of consensus that is, unfortunately, rare in the present-day society although it may to some extent mitigate that deficiency, the democracy has not found to date the answer as to how to overcome such deficiency.  

Efficient protection of an individual against inconvenient acting by another individual or a group of people can be established by direct and equal ability of assessment among people. May each man be allocated the power to evaluate with positive grades the man or an association of men who have brought him the conveniences, and with negative grades all those who brought him the inconveniences. May such grades automatically exert a little, however, satisfactory impact of the formation of a system of rewards and punishments of individuals in the society?  

By introducing a socially acceptable regulation, negative grades may form sanctions to those who committed the inconveniences in the society. They would automatically manifest in a very small, but still noticeable taking away of the quantity of the voting past labor points of individuals, which would diminish to the same extent and on a lasting basis the man's power in the society. It will be later explained in greater detail how the loss of the voting past labor points directly influences the level of income.  

And conversely, persons or an association that would create conveniences to the society in a larger volume would be given positive grades from several members of the society. Getting the positive grade would bring major conveniences to the committer. The conveniences would manifest in a very small but still noticeable increase in the quantity of the voting past labor points, which would to the same extent and on a lasting basis increase the man's power in the society, and income.  

Each man may by his activity bring conveniences and inconveniences to the society and, therefore, each man will get both positive and negative grades, which the society will need to accept. However, the persons that would create a larger number of inconveniences in the society would get negative grades from more people and on a longer-term basis, which would force them to change their behavior.  

The evaluation system is already in place in the societies when the public opinion is sought about the success of some actions in the society. However, such assessment has nowhere a direct power. The society would need to have much courage in order to adopt such measure but then it will realize huge benefits.  

Technically, evaluation could be carried out by inscriptions on the computer card or application, and would then be processed in the commune's administrative centre. It would be necessary to establish here a full equality as a base of equality of the human rights. In the proposed system all inhabitants would have an equally limited number of evaluation possibilities. This means that each man will concentrate his evaluation on the persons bringing him most conveniences and inconveniences. 

In such a society not a single man will be privileged. Nobody will be able to make use of the freedom of expressing the opinion and of acting if such freedom brings inconveniences to another man. Not a single person will be allowed to generate any sort of inconvenience to anybody in the society. The system will systematically eliminate all inconvenient states in the society, and thus the system will no longer inhibit itself in its own alienation.  

It is certainly worth raising the question as to how much each man is able to objectively evaluate the causes of occurrence of the conveniences and inconveniences and, accordingly, how much he is able to evaluate the activities of another man? In any society the subjective evaluation of the causes of inconveniences is possible so that individuals could by their evaluation erroneously assess other people. In direct relations among people, each man needs to make decisions in the way he experiences them. And the society is bound to respect the sensitive and emotional state of each man, irrespective of the level of development of the knowledge or consciousness of such man. The orientation that respects any individual in the society is the best possible and the most correct. The society as a gathering of subjective members may form by its practice the most impartial criteria of valorization of both the conveniences and inconveniences in the society.   

At the very outset of functioning of such a system, destructively oriented members, or those having a perverse idea of the conveniences may exist in such a society. Such members may positively evaluate the negative actions in the society, and assess as positive those negative, which would create difficulties for a positive social orientation. In this regard, the assessment made in the beginning would not have to bring significant conveniences and inconveniences to the society members. On the other side, perverse evaluation may not be significantly present because a destructive society cannot survive. The persons that would still apply a destructive mode of evaluation would not be able to hide their destructive orientation and, consequently, their destructive activities, and would to a greater extent receive the negative evaluations by the society. This would force them to pay more attention to their own orientation, to get to know themselves and their powers, and to find the way for realizing a constructive orientation.  

The evaluation of individuals will not have a major impact on the society irrespective of the evaluation they give, while all individuals taken together will have an enormous influence on the activity of individuals in the society. Such a system would eliminate in the very roots the possibility of emergence of extremely inconvenient leaders, nationalists, chauvinists, racists, and all potential dictators and sadists influencing the society in an inconvenient or destructive manner.  

Further, the system would allow each man to reach satisfaction by giving an inconvenient evaluation to a man who creates inconveniences to him or to the society. Such satisfaction is more favorable, more constructive and more efficient than any form of revenge that the alienated society practices. Needless to say that satisfaction also brings the power of rewarding by positive evaluation, by which the man supports and makes richer the man creating him the conveniences.    

The proposed assessment system would allow each member of the society to actually receive equal legislative, judicial and executive power in the distribution of rewards and punishments in the society. As the assessed person would have no right of complaint, it may be expected that the society would take into account the needs of each member, which would contribute to the formation of a convenient social orientation.  

Once such system is introduced, each man will try to get to know another man and his needs in order not to inflict him the inconveniences unintentionally. The man loves more the people that he gets to know more. In such a society, the man will behave vis-à-vis other man with respect and in good faith. He will try to act in the manner in which he will bring to another man and the society as a whole les inconveniences and more conveniences.  

It may be assumed that the system of mutual assessment of the society members will lead to a grouping of people according to the principle of related interests. The society members with equal interests will get relatively isolated in order to accomplish in mutual contacts more conveniences and avoid creation of inconveniences to the society members with opposite interests. In this way, the system will allow exercise of different interests in the society, and development of the wealth of different orientations.  

In such a system all inhabitants will permanently try to create the largest possible conveniences to individuals and the society as a whole. Historically viewed, one can accept the rule that in the cases where such social orientation existed the society used to prosper and lived a prosperous and constructive life, while in systems where individuals found conveniences to the detriment of the society; a destructive orientation used to occur that was leading to the break-up of the social system.  

The system of mutual assessment of the society members may significantly diminish the need for setting the norms of social relations and increase the freedom of the society, because individuals in general, and leaders in particular, would not be doing what they would not like others to do to them. Such a system will reduce the need for the activity of legislative bodies because individuals will to a greater extent avoid the inconvenient and specially the destructive activities. Still, judges and prosecutors conducting the proceedings against individuals, as well as the authorities caring for the order and protecting the society will certainly still have for a period of time work to do, and that is why they will need to have an assessment immunity. Their work will be assessed by special commissions.  

Individual establishment of eligibility criteria in the society may, unlike rigid normative deeds, have a deeper and broader impact on the developments in the society. Such assessment will create unwritten rules of social behavior that will allow convenient changes in the needs of the society, something that normative deeds cannot do. In developed world, direct assessment of each man about the free movement of any other man or association needs to be the basic law of regulation of the social movement. In such a system, the social movement will have to suit the needs of the society. In this way, social laws and regulations, including judicial authorities as alienated forms of valorization and of setting the norms of the social movement would become superfluous.  

No doubt that the rules set by referendum for collective movement, and equal right for assessing the freedom of individual acting constitute the highest degree of democracy, because the will of the people is exercised directly from above and from below, thus allowing the greatest prosperity of the society.  

As such form of democracy incorporates anarchy, I have given it a contradictory name of democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy represents the basic key for the resolution of the problems in the society. It has lacked so far not allowing, therefore, the overcoming of inconveniences in the society. Democratic anarchy will form the rules for social behavior that will suit mostly to the society members, that will meet most needs of the society, that will bring most prosperity to the society, and because of that it needs to be accepted as such.  

The commune's policies will no longer be tailored in alienated centers of political power. The commune's policies will be based on the needs of each individual inhabitant and all of the needs of all inhabitants together will form the rules for joint activity. That is why we can call it a humanistic policy. The author of these lines hopes that at one point of time and in some place a political party will adopt partly or in whole the program described in this book. That it will present such program to citizens and win elections. It will be the beginning of a great political system reform, and of a huge development of the society in all regards.

 Back to Top