3.1.2.1                        Work Division   

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

This is possible to achieve by pooling the commune's economy through buy-out of private ownership of the means of production with past labour income-based points. Such a measure would allow that 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 and unemployed workers. Such work posts are privileged even in capitalism that has developed a market competing system of doing business. Ensured work posts offer to economic security workers but they at the same time certainly lull their productive forces. When one cannot choose his work, it is hard to expect from him to realize his creative essential forces. The work then becomes monotonous, forceful and as such contributes insufficiently, no doubt, to the production of conveniences in the society. Such works per se is not a value, which is a pity, because ordinary man spends a large part of his life in the work that does not bring him 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, the work will become a value, and productivity the largest necessary.

The system requires 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 the business activity will come across the 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 adequate quantity of past labour income-based points, corresponding to the contribution such idea makes.

***

Associated labour requires an organized division of work. In a 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 in terms of quantity and quality of work, the potential of the means of production and market needs, and then to orient the associated labour so as to be able to most efficiently satisfy the social needs.

It will be a duty of managers to distribute the work in the manner that will allow a full employment of workers. Otherwise, competition among workers for the work posts would create unhealthy relations in production. With the 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 down, according to their own judgment, the work obligations of each work post, to close down the work posts not sufficiently needed, and to open new ones by taking 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 the management, as long as there will be a need for them. If these are the works that reduce the volume because the need is falling, the number of workers performing them will get smaller and smaller until full closedown of the enterprise. The workers whose employment terminates because of the reorientation of the economy will be recognized to have met their contracted obligations in full and would thus be remunerated for the work, and will seek new jobs ensured by the management.

All work posts are subject to work competition 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 income-based 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 concentrate the work posts where they are 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 income-based 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 on any work post. Management establishes the necessary productivity and accountability for each work post. However, each worker may expand the obligations assigned to his work in the function of quantity and quality of such work, if he contributes to improved productivity of the collective, which is evaluated by the management.  

Workers are bound to comply with the requirements of the lower-ranking management and the contracted obligations; however, they will be free to act autonomously, in line with the autonomy granted by the lower 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. Optimal relationship of 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 just 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 lagging behind of the economy. If the higher-ranking management gave too many authorities to the lower-ranking managers, the possibility of coordinating the 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 information about the level of the work capacity utilization in certain plants, which allows a constant spill over of work and a greater utilization of the work capacity.  

*** 

A worker who offers the highest productivity and responsibility and the lowest price of his 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 he should get the right to work on such work post. Each work, the managing 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 =

The formula will require the coordination of influences of each variable. After that it will give the value pointing to the competitive capability of worker for a needed work post. Each worker proposes the magnitude of coefficients expressed in numbers according to his own capabilities for the job he wishes 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 desired work post. Beside that the realized higher C-of work competition allows each worker to take the work post of another worker with an obligation to assume all labour obligations and responsibilities of such 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. The cash profit on a free market involves all elements of productive business activity such as the quantity and quality of work, cost effectiveness, rationality, usability, serviceability, etc. The cash profit is the social evaluation of the success of the 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 establishment of productivity would take too much time, the 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 work believing that he can increase the productivity by 10% will offer the assessment of his own productivity higher by 10%, and its value will then be 1.1. The work assessment may replace all other forms of the labour productivity valuation. Each worker can show his C-productivity by a 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 of 1. A coefficient larger than 1, will indicate a work more productive than the existing one. A worker who offers a larger coefficient will have larger chance to exercise the right on a needed work post.  

Once the accounting period is over, it is necessary to valorize the realized productivity in order to establish the successfulness 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 himself as an offer of his 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 man's essential powers. The man needs an objective scale of values in order to get to know himself objectively, as well as the possibility of his 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 mode of the bearing of responsibility, the workers would not be bound to implement the 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 the responsibility for the realization of 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 his work, and since his work is non-alienable from the work of the collective, he thus also bears 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 number 1 (one). Let it be assumed that the interval between minimal and maximal responsibility is from 0.1 to 10. The responsibility set by the value equal to 0.1 would be the minimal, and that set by number 10 would be the maximal responsibility. Enterprises may set a separate minimal coefficient of responsibility for each individual work post.  

Let each worker set the level of his responsibility that he may assume for his work and for the work of the collective expressed by 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 competition for performing the work on a specific work post, and vice-versa.  

The coefficient of responsibility will have to reflect on 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 worker will realize an income smaller than that of his rival in the case of equally bad business performance.  

As each work leaves in some form the lasting consequences on the society, the coefficient of responsibility will also need to influence the past labour income-based value through past labour income-based points.  

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 of productivity in the economy the workers will also realize a larger cash profit, and will thereby also acquire a larger quantity of past labour income-based points for distribution. And vice-versa, when losses occur in the economy the workers lose their past labour income-based 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 the past labour points of workers. And finally, if the difference of the quoted productivities shows a loss of money, such difference will be deducted from the past labour points of all workers of an enterprise, proportionately to the coefficient of responsibility.  

Enterprises in non-economic 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 on the market. Instead, they realize it on the basis of appropriations from the commune’s revenue.  

In non-economic enterprises, the measure of the operating result value needs to be based on the realized productivity in the function of the quantity and quality of operating results. The work quality needs to be expressed by evaluation of satisfaction of the service user. A higher grade received from the service user will be an equivalent to a higher cash profit of economic enterprises. In this way, non-economic enterprises will get the 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 economic and non-economic enterprises. By applying mathematical coefficients, it is possible to compare the cash profit of the economy and the realized productivity of the non-economy expressed in any magnitude, including the assessment of productivity.  

All unemployed inhabitants will also have some sort of a C-responsibility set by the leaders and adopted by the assembly of the commune. They can on this basis get or lose the past labour points but in 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 on 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 the productivity that shows smaller of larger oscillations in monthly accountings will in a period of one year give a real account of productivity.  

Once the quantity is known of the past labour points that each enterprise realize or lose as a whole, then distribution or deduction will be carried out proportionately to the coefficients of responsibility. By applying the computer technology in the period of accounting, the distribution of past labour income-based points as well as their deduction can be quickly and simply calculated for un 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 a 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  

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

Example:  A worker who stated the coefficient of responsibility as 1.5 will realize on account of the responsibility function a gain of past labour income-based points three times larger than the worker who states the coefficient of responsibility 0.5 in the case of rise in the 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 the passive collective members. Such responsibility will require that workers get familiar with the consequences of doing business, which will largely contribute to the overcoming of disalienation in the process of production.  

In the capitalistic form of production, a larger profit is as a general rule related with the higher risk of investing money. The new system introduces C-responsibilities with which the workers can, according to their own will, speculate as regards the risk assumed for the success of the collective production. However, such speculation is non-alienable from 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 the 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 has been described the individual participation in collective responsibility of workers. Now needs to be defined the individual responsibility of workers in process of production. Workers individually might produce benefits or damages in the collective process of production. In order of creation of 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 income-based points. Such remunerating and sanctioning needs to be carried out by an arbitration commission of company in accordance with accepted company’s 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 the individual responsibility. Mutual assessment of the work would reward the good workers and sanctions those bad in the function of the proposed coefficient of responsibility. Let it be assumed that each positive assessment brings to the worker the 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 the 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 the bearing of 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 not to inflict by his activity, or to inflict as little as possible, the inconvenience to any other man and to bring to every man as much conveniences as possible. This will represent the substance of a productive social orientation that will promote inter-personal relations.  

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

A worker wishing to increase his work competitiveness must also increase the 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, he will have 100.012 points after the assessment. If he, instead, gets 20 negative votes, 24 points will be deducted, and will thus after that have in total 99.976 income points. As the 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.  

It is possible, of course, to amortize the excessively negative or positive assessment. In this way, let's say, a worker who gets a considerable number of assessments would lose or receive a reduced quantity of past labour points.  

*** 

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

Responsibility is some sort of fear from inconveniences. The fear from inconveniences gives the man a driving force that is a condition for reaching a convenience. When an inconvenience is unreachable, it is hard to notice the reason for setting someone 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 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 the remarks coming from workers, who will seek for the most favourable solutions for doing business and direct, on the basis of collective agreements, the economic activity. 

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 the 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 the conveniences and sanctions the inconveniences.  

Once the annual accounting is complete, total gross quantity of past labour points of all workers needs to be equal to 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 the 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 condition spent out 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 less convenient will have the price equal to number 2, while the work twice more convenient will have a price of 0.5.  

A worker who seeks a lower current labour price 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 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 he must accept the work conditions irrespective of how much they are suitable to him. In such cases the work is a coercion that brings inconveniences to the society. The new system allows every worker to find the work that brings him 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 more the current labour price because his income will still be sufficiently high. A worker with a smaller value of past labour will withdraw, because his income would be too small.  

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

Achieved results

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 an unlimited quantity of 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.

Even the education system might present how big changes are coming. Teachers will work hard to satisfy interests of students because students will evaluate their work. On the other hand, teachers will not need any more to evaluate students because students will latter through their work be evaluated by society what ever they do. School will not be any more a warranty for acquired knowledge but only a place for acquiring knowledge.

In more complex work forms, such as the managing functions, medical protection, specialist work, a candidate will first have to undergo a selection by the managing boards of enterprise or by the commune. On all other work posts the employment technique will be very simple. The management decides whether on a certain work post the productivity is limited or not, 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 on certain work post. This means that he can also take the work post of an employed worker if such 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-interval in which to respond whether he can and wishes to assume a larger productivity, responsibility or a lower current labour price. If he accepts, he continues to work, however, under new conditions.

A worker who cannot accept the competitive conditions leaves his work post. Such worker is recognized to have met all his obligations on such work post. He exercises the right to periodical distribution of past labour income-based points, as if he has realized the envisaged productivity. Income of such worker will be gradually falling until he finds a new work post, at which point the income will start gradually rising again. Hence, the worker leaving his work post is protected in terms of income, so that temporary unemployment will not produce to him any significant material inconveniences. 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 he would according to his 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 by a new form of responsibility of making his competitor familiar with all work obligations. A new coming worker takes over all work obligations of his predecessor, and adds new ones. He assumes the responsibility to accomplish the existing productivity of the previous worker, as well as the offered rise in productivity; however, he gets remuneration in the form of past labour income-based points only for own rise of productivity.

*****

The concept of power is in the present-day society considerably alienated because a man has during his lifetime lived pressed by authoritative forces. That has brought to him an intensified feeling of inferiority and creates, as a reaction, a need for superiority. The man of today has interests in any form of affirmation through competitions in sports, culture, possession of money, etc. Being a winner represents a great value to the man, because it is precisely there where his 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 his segment of acting. It will be a form of recognition, a possibility for the man to compensate the impotency caused by authoritative influences, to become aware of his vitality, of his own powers. The man 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, the socially beneficial operating result. Then the workers who will considerably develop an egoistic trait of their characters 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 the society.

The means of production find their major justification if they are in the hands of 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 his laurels. As time will pass, a fatigue and saturation with the excessive acting in a broad social sense may be expected and, consequently, the ambitions will grow weary. Such orientation will form a natural balance between the man's natural needs and possibilities. This would inevitably lead to objective acceptance of the proper limitation of each man and to the respect of each man for another man.

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. He will be able to decrease his C-of responsibility irrespective of whether the enterprise he works in operates well or bad, and whether the same work suits him or not. Further, the worker commits to stay on a certain work post for a definite period of time. In that period, he will not be allowed to compete for new work posts unless he would be willing to pay a penalty in income-based points for early leave. Moreover, a worker who willingly leaves his work post cannot be relieved from responsibility for envisaged work on the work post left in 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 his coworkers or customers so that they may over a longer period of time assess him negatively, which will have a negative impact on income and the quantity of past labour income-based points such worker holds. In this regard, each worker will think well before taking up any 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 he 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 him 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 relationship 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 the 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 expenses of other workers as it is very common today because everyone will be able to breach not ethical agreements. In such a way the system will ensure its productive orientation in every segment of the production processes. Beside that the agreement will push the competition out, which will contribute to disalienation of the society and to the creation of harmonious social relations.

With the work competition in place, all workers are in 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 the man over the man or, to say it more precisely, the mechanism of the man's exploitation by the man. 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 the work processes with interest, develop a critical attitude and to act by relying on their own forces. That road will allow each worker to examine the validity of the premises that guided him 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 man's natural and essential creative forces.

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

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

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

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

Only then will the society form a constructive attitude toward the young. Such attitude will no longer be authoritative for the reason that not a single man 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 man to develop rightly from the very beginning. Only at that point of time will the society be able to find its own long-term constructive orientation.

 

 Back to Top