2.2.1             Socialism  

Dictatorship of Autocracy  

By his own nature each man aspires to greater power in order to accomplish greater benefits. The man becomes aware of his power by comparing himself with another man. This act is probably alienated but has almost always existed as such and it has, therefore, to be accepted as long as the society will have found an orientation how to overcome it. On the way to reaching more power, the alienated man can easily avail of his abilities for accomplishing superiority over another man. Successful individual exercises greater rights than other individuals, imposes his will upon the society or, in brief, exercises the power in the society.  

The power brings great-alienated conveniences and this is the reason why a no-quarter struggle is waged among people for accomplishment of the right to power in all fields. In the history of mankind, most blood was shed in the struggle for power. In this struggle, a stronger, more skilful, more cunning or wiser wins and rules the society. The power established by force is irrefutably autocratic and represents a dictatorship. Dictators organize the exercise of the power in the society on a determined territory by forming or by re-arranging a state. They fully independently establish the state order, laws, regulations and rules for regularizing the social relations. They have irrefutable legislative, executive and judiciary power in the state, and ensure implementation of their decisions by using the physical force, and by the proclaimed ideologies.  

Dictators form or use ideologies as a means for imposing subjective visions about the rules for the movements in nature. Ideologies often give an alienated answer to all questions that a frightened “society that does not know” may ask about the unknown nature. They also often determine rules for social behaviour that brings stability and conveniences to society. "The society that does not know" accepts any idea that rids it of the inconvenient tension of its existing in nature. Thus ideologies bring large conveniences to the people but also they are the foundation of alienation of society.

Under the impact of ideologies the followers respect dictators on a lasting basis, with a great-alienated respect and even with awe. Such a society may be highly stable and homogenous. The characteristic of the relationship between the power and followers is that of supplements in the impotence, which mutually brings a great alienated power that is able to accomplish grandiose acts, a great stability of the society and illusory conveniences. Due to the strong links, the relationship of the power and followers may give an impression of love; however, it is not the love. Love is the product of the man's freedom, knowledge, potency and belief in the conveniences. The relationship between the power and followers is precisely opposite. It is characterized by great dependence, lack of knowledge and impotence and permanently represents, therefore, a sort of a sadistic-masochistic relationship, and necessarily develops the same.  

On his route toward accomplishing major benefits a dictator exploits the society. He takes away from the followers the freedom in expressing their views, in decision-making and acting. This form of exploitation is markedly inconvenient for the followers, as it penetrates into the basic man's essence, into what makes him the man. That form of exploitation allows an unhampered material exploitation of the society, that is deprivation of the benefits that arose from the products of social work.  

Authoritative power is privileged. Privileges provide an artificial confirmation of overcoming of the impotency that forms a narcissistic feature of the character. A narcissistic dictator reduces the possibility of reaching the conveniences in natural relationship of people, and tries to accomplish major benefits in greater exploitation of the society. Naturally, greater exploitation cannot result in satisfaction of the needs since alienated needs are, as a general rule, insatiable. Non-satisfied alienated needs create an inconvenient tension that the man cannot get rid of in a natural way and, therefore, the man's organism finds an illusory satisfaction and relaxation in the perversion of the needs. In such circumstances the authoritative power finds the benefits in a forced relationship toward the followers.  

If alienation in the society is greater, the followers find the conveniences in sacrificing in favour of the dictator, which inevitably develops the disease of the society. In a markedly authoritative society, constructive activity cannot bring benefits. In such a society, only illusory benefits can be accomplished; in fact, the society lives a biologically inconvenient life.  

Autocrats never find the sources of inconvenience in their own attitude vis-à-vis the society. Instead, they assign them to subordinate members, and it is more convenient for them to pass them onto other social groups. False causes of the inconveniences and the impotence of the society to accomplish benefits develop a group-narcissistic form of alienation.

By definition, such orientation glorifies one's own social group against others. As such presentation is false, it easily develops intolerance vis-à-vis other societies, which creates nationalisms, chauvinisms, racisms, fascisms and other inconvenient phenomena. Such phenomena, combined with large destructive energy of the non-satisfied alienated society, create a programme for aggression and all social conflicts. Non-satisfied society finds illusory liberation from the inconvenient tension, and also the conveniences in the superiority accomplished by destruction. As group narcissism develops to the extreme the subjectivity by which it overvalues the potency of its own group, it thus always overlooks the objective potencies that surround the group, which ends up catastrophically for the one's own social group.  

The less social knowledge is the greater authoritativeness it creates and alienation is greater; the less satisfied the natural needs in the society are, the stronger the need for destruction in the society is, and thus the destruction of the society and of social accomplishments is greater. Destructiveness in the society lasts until the elimination of the protagonists of the destructive needs, because it is very hard for such a society to comprehend the way of its own constructive orientation.  

The society with more knowledge seeks greater freedom, because it is the only way to accomplish greater benefits. It seeks a share in the decision-making about the rules of collective development. The dictator does not allow such requirements as they represent a loss of their vision of conveniences. Keeping of the power equates with the vision of survival in the alienated consciousness of the dictator.  

When the requirements of autocrats significantly oppose the nature of a society, tension develops in the society that forces it to rebel against the power, because there are the limits that "the society that knows" cannot stand. It then directs its energy to toppling the authoritative ruling class and its ideologies. If new forces sufficiently develop in the society, and the power sufficiently gets lulled into its potency, new forces take over the power and form new rules of social behaviours that bring greater benefits to the society. 

Socialism – Delegate Form of Democracy  

The most famous takeover of such type is known under the name of socialist revolution. The objectives of socialist revolutions have been to ensure social stability and prosperity. They tried, as a reaction to the lack of rights of people, to form social relations that create equality, prosperity and humane relations among people. In theory, the structure of the systems starts from a fully free cooperation among the people, without repressions known under the name of anarchy. The other extreme lies in the long-term complete regulation of social relations. However, even the theory of such systems is not developed enough. Developed productive social relations are too complex to be left over to anarchy. Large regulation of social relationships requires a strong support by repressive measures that provide stability, but take freedom away and thus hinder the society.  

Protagonists of the socialist revolutions have tried to define a social system that suits optimally all individuals in the society. It is accomplished by equal democratic decision-making of all society members on all issues of collective interest. An ideal form of democracy is carried out by mutual agreement on all community members, until consensus is established on the rules for collective movement. It is sometimes very hard to make consensus because of largely different interests; however, upon the success accomplished such a democracy allows to optimally direct the society in line with its needs. It may enable formation of a homogenous productive social orientation, stability and prosperity.  

However, in larger social communities such as a state, an agreement on equal footing about the collective movement cannot be achieved because of the large number of entities with a large number of different needs. Therefore, in socialist systems delegates are formed that represent the society in setting up the rules of social behaviour. The society elects the delegates by elections estimating the degree of their contribution to the development of the society. The delegates are bound to represent the interests of their elective constituencies in the administration bodies.  

The delegate decision-making system about joint activity of the society requires a broad discussion in each segment of the society where decisions are made and then, through delegates, conveyed to the administration bodies that make up the legislative, executive and judicial power. Socialist administrative bodies trz in this way to form a social order that optimally meets the social needs.  

There have been in history several sincere attempts to create a democratic delegate system. However, the problems emerged again with regard to the difficulties in harmonizing different interests of a large number of entities with the possibilities of the society and, naturally, of the need of the people to exercise power over the society. Generally speaking, the democratic delegate system did not manage to prove its successfulness in practice.  

In order to allow the making of efficient measures, protagonists of revolutionary movements used to assume direct management over the society naming it "the dictatorship of the proletariat". In order to accomplish the stability of the system in the long run, they form an ideology that directs the society, thereby stabilizing the social activity and the society as a whole. Such ideologies are acceptable for the society as they proclaim the equality, solidarity, "brotherhood and unity" among people. In reality, however, the unity does not allow an option that would differ from the ruling one. Delegates alienate themselves from society and no longer transmit the will of the people to the centre, but convey the will of the centre to the people supported by the repressive state apparatus. Such a system does not enable the society to freely decide and solidify the power of autocracy. In this way, the dictatorship system gets renewed in the society where the man as an individual becomes impotent. Then emerge all inconvenient phenomena of the alienated autocratic social order.  

Socialist Production 

The socialist form of production understands social ownership of the means of production. Since the society has not found out a peaceful mode of transforming the private into social ownership of the means of production, it has been taking forcedly away the private ownership, which makes the private capital owners deeply dissatisfied. Such act represents the negation of the differences in the productive power of workers' past labour, which would also have to consistently require the negation of the differences in the productive power of the current and future labour of workers. Such an attitude supposes that all workers are equally productive and deserve, therefore, equal share in the distribution of the product of mutual work performance. Such distribution system lacks the income-based work stimulation, so that the operation result is below expectations.   

Further, the socialist form of production would need to understand a democratic plan and organization of production and distribution. A democratic planned economy needs to generate the products in a quantity and of a quality precisely as needed individually and collectively by members of the society. Since the society has not acquired the knowledge and, consequently, the possibility of forming democratic planned economies, it has created an authoritative planned economy. In such a system, the political power bodies elected in more or less democratic elections assume the role of planners and organizers of the production and distribution in the name of the society.  

A centralized form of production planning may successfully follow the basic interests of an undeveloped society, such as food, housing, education, health care, culture or sports, as such needs may be successfully envisaged. In the beginning, the socialist system brings great prosperity to the society because, as a reaction to repressive exploitation systems, a strong enthusiasm emerges that inspires the people in their building of a better future. In such a system, the authorities introduce a unique production organization that may achieve full employment of workers, a satisfactory productivity, a stable business activity, and satisfaction of the basic social needs. The people get gratis education, social and health protection, and income sufficient to meet all their basic natural needs. The initial working enthusiasm contributes to a significant rise of the living standard. The people are satisfied and the rate of criminality is low.  

However, as the time passes the enthusiasm in the society falls and big problems emerge. The planned economy determined from one centre could neither register nor plan the special needs of the society members. An economy not having an objective overview of the social needs cannot make a successful work programme. In such a system the consumer has no possibility of election of the consumption and, therefore, the economic system exerts violence over the consumers.  

Planned economy is not subject to the market criterion of the cost of labour, and employs all workers protecting at the same time their work posts as a reaction to merciless exploitation systems. The protected work posts create a closed structure that hinders the production process. The work loses creativity and becomes monotonous, non-stimulating in productive terms. Protected workers are privileged and can, therefore, inflict inconveniences to other members of the community in the form of insufficient work engagement when it is necessary to other community members. The system has developed a very strong political responsibility in order to protect itself; however, it has not managed to create a successful mechanism of economic responsibility. Simply, the system could not send each insufficiently engaged worker to prison, and could not offer a real economic stimulation. Moreover, the workers without any right to decision-making do not accept social ownership as their own, and thus behave irresponsibly toward the same.  

An authoritative planned economy tries to overcome all such deficiencies by forming an ideological, working and humanitarian consciousness; however, this is non-achievable with the bureaucratic, authoritative forces that coordinate the activity and distribution. On its route to achieving major benefits, the autocratic power aspires to the control of all relations in the society, thus not differentiating largely from the extreme dictatorial regimes. Such control oppresses the society and is, therefore, doomed to failure, as have all dictatorships failed. Regardless of the initial success, the authoritative planned economy is alienated, non-productive, without perspective and thus potentially destructive, which is also visible in the example of the breakdown of the so-called "real socialism" in the world.  

 Back to Top