CONTENTS
0. Introductory remarks
1. The bad capitalism
2. The new socialism
3. Frexploism or free exploitation
4. Expropriation post mortem
5. Troiism of powers
6. Families and population
7. Conclusion
8. Poetical appendix: Nice Future
0. Introductory remarks
It is right in the beginning to explain you, why I have decided to write this essay, and as if the simplest answer is: because this folder with social essays ... must at last be closed! Yes, because I have begun it in 2004, this was before nearly 20 years, and how long one can wait? Yet there is nothing premature in this, for I have simply used all important topics, especially with the last pieces, namely: "The right way to get old", "About Bulgarian barbarity", "Open letter to God almighty", the previous "Seven naive philosophical questions", and now about the future, so that everything is well tied and related and leads to the finish -- because: what can follow after the future? And, surely, 10 is a good enough number for closing of a book with essays, and I have jumped over my 72 years when one can not easily find new interesting topics, so that there are enough reasons for doing this; probably one could have even asked: why not earlier? -- and the answer to this question is that I simply have had
no time, I worked under other pen-name, and had many things about which to write.
I must add also that this material is again conglomerate, it contains several topics, but there is nothing bad in this, in this way it is just more intriguing, I suppose. Yet the chapters here are not eclectically gathered together, they are closely related and thought through. Probably it would have been better to come to these things analyzing the constant trends and extrapolating them, together with mentioning the main drawbacks of the society and trying to avoid them, but this is a bit tedious approach, plus that I
have done this in my "Cynical essays", in "About the future". And not only this, the last mentioned essay was written before nearly a quarter of a century, I have come to many new ideas in the last just pair of years (say, about the
necessity of exploitation, about social allowances for
everybody, about
three powers in the government, even about new kind of
chosen families), so that I have climbed incessantly to this here peak, I am just summarizing the things with this material. And these constant trends and necessary changes stay put in this essay, only that I give my ideas as taken from the blue and just explaining them, in order to cut some boring philosophizing.
And now to the future: what this very word says to us? Well, nothing unexpected, it is Latin and comes from their verb
futuo, which is said to have given the English "fertilize", what may mean also sexual intercourse, but the idea is that this is what you will get after the sowing or fertilizing, it depends chiefly on the present deeds of the humanity. So that I will mention first some bad deeds done under the capitalism, which is surely bad, otherwise we would have not had the two World wars and the atom bombs thrown etc.; never before this in the human history has been done such really mass killing of people, this is undoubtedly. Then I will discuss the socialism and propose new one, more
social than that of the communists, to be sure (not because I am a communist, no and never, but I have just an open mind and the situation has been also changed for more than a century). So this new socialism will provide allowances for
everybody, I am convinced that this is possible now.
OK, but this new socialism goes hand in hand with the ... exploitation, to be sure. Where I will try to convince you first that the exploitation, and exactly in this meaning of the word, is just
necessary, both, for the society and for the people, it must continue to exist, yet in a very mild form, not with persons starving from hunger or dying because of no money for medical treatment; more than this, this exploitation will be
free, and one must be able to live (relatively
good) without it (if he wants), hoping that he will just want to be exploited! This is a bit tricky, but not much, it is simply a matter of priorities. (It is more or less like the bread and the circuses -- when one has no bread he wants it before all, but when he is satiated, then he does not want more this but circuses.) And there is also another idea of mine, from before about 20 years, about expropriation of very big private assets, yet also in a mild form, done
after the death of the owner, so that nobody will suffer and this will enliven the production, after all.
Then comes one simple idea of mine about the necessity of (at least) three powers, as quite natural extension of the idea of dividing of the power; i.e. this is
not because I am so clever like no one but because this is natural evolvement of the things, and I have proposed this somewhere in 2007 (in the "Government of reasonable alternative" as Appendix to the "Manifestos"). In this way we will have better democracy, with dividing of the powers. And after this I will speak for a while about the families, which not only have begun, but continue to disappear, and the necessity for their substitution with something simply cries to heaven. This is quite recent idea of mine, which I have elaborated under another pseudonym, but it is very important, and I have some small touches of quite recent time (not yet published); as far as this is related with the question of world population I will say something also about the overpopulation. As if this is enough as introduction.
1. The bad capitalism
Ah, people, if the capitalism was good there would have never come neither Marx nor Lenin nor Stalin nor Mao etc., i.e. there would have never been realized the communism with its, so to say,
sparring partner, the fascism; all this would have remained in another of the parallel Universes, not in ours! So that -- one can, surely, have such look at the things -- the cause for the two mentioned extreme forms of capitalism is the very capitalism, no more no less. I do not state that the capitalism was not with something better than the previous serfdom, it was, but not much. And do not think, please, that all this was in the past and the contemporary capitalism, more so after the collapse of Soviet era and rejecting of the communism and returning to the worldwide right-wing capitalism, is much better because it is just a bit so, but not really better (say, China is still communist country, and there is no guaranty that somewhere in the world will not appear some new communist modification)! Also, come to think of it, the communism and fascism were extreme forms of capitalism, but the necessity of extremities arises when the normal current of something is
not good, this is obvious, hence the usual moderate and more right- than left- wing capitalism was and is (and probably will ever be) bad. The communism and fascism were effective, don't forget this, and there are moments when the effectiveness counts, but the bad thing with them was their fast fading, they turned to be bad for peaceful situations.
This, to what I am leading you, is that the main pillar of capitalism, the
money and its power everywhere, was and is bad! And here we come to the notion totalitarianism, used for these extreme forms of capitalism, like in the communist countries, where the state (Party and Government) was everything, and moral instance, too. But it is said that there has to be
no moral incorporated in the state, right? Hm, as if nobody states this in the open, but this is for what the great French revolution was lead, to throw the church out of the state, also the aristocracy, and to allow the common people to have rights to everything. So that capitalism means power of the money, not restricted by whatever other notion, moral or of birth or of some other character (say, of ethnicity), what non-restrictiveness was guarantied by the laws. This may look good as idea, yet it quite often turns to be much
worse. if not for other reasons, then because such approach was
not applied in the long previous history, and the precedent or usual habit has always to be taken somehow in consideration! I mean that we, naturally, have the right to invent and apply some new rules or orders, but it must always be pondered about why this was not so before, what has been changed, and is this change for good or not exactly.
And it was not exactly for good, to reject all other institutions and to leave the money to have unlimited power all over the world. Because of this drawbacks of normal capitalism have arisen the communism and the fascism, which tried to break the ruling of money, when this was necessary for some other higher reasons. Yes, but you look now carefully, please, because we have rejected the common capitalism with two kinds of totalitarian states, which were totalitarian because have introduced some
moral in the government (which social orders have fast faded away because of their
extremity of the ideas, having suppressed some usual laws in the name of the ideals). (The moral, you have to know this, or at least to feel it somehow, becomes usually
obsolete, especially of some real religion, and because of this it may hinder the evolution of life, after all. But lack of moral is more dangerous, in the long run, methinks.) So that the communism (together with its antipode, the fascism) was totalitarian ruling in the sense of some ideals, which turned later to be not really lawful, not in accordance with the common sense. Yes, but the very capitalism is
also totalitarian order -- and this is my latest discovery, from this or the past year only --, just that in another sense, in the sense of money!
Have you got it? Ah, from after the French revolution, or at least after the Communist Manifest of Marx, or be it even from 1900 for round number, we have had
only totalitarian orders, where the middle stream capitalism is such in the sense of unlimited ruling of money (which are denied for millenniums), while the extreme currents are such in the name of some ideas (and especially that of the communism is pretty good, after all, it is in the name of common people). This is something like the situation, which in ancient times was called to be between Scylla and Charybdis, so that we must simply continue to make other tries in order to near the right- with the left- wing capitalism! And something of the kind is what I am doing here, proposing some better capitalism, what I have been doing for about a quarter of a century (since my "Curious manifestos" and even since my first booklet, "The communism as religion").
I have the feeling that the capitalism is
not yet settled, it is pretty new social order, what can explain many of its drawbacks, but it isn't only this, because it had drawbacks already before one and a half centuries, it has them now, and it will have them in the near future, if something will not be done in order to improve it significantly. Because, look now, look at our poor Bulgaria, which country has went to the way of democracy after half a century of socialism, and has ... jumped from the frying pan in the fire, like it's said. For we have now zero interest rates (instead of 1 or 2 percents earlier), and have even to
pay for putting money in the account (yes, unbelievable but true), and
all currencies are weak, because there is not a single currency for which one can get at least 1 percent, to say nothing about 3 to 5, and this under galloping inflation! (I can't cite you exact numbers, but by us the prices of sunflower oil has grown nearly 3 times, and of other basic food product about 1.5 to 2 times, and this for less than
half an year, and the prices on electricity are expecting also to jump.) This is, surely, worse than under the totalitarianism, because in those times existed stagnation, what must be well known. And this also in situation when the food is wide away from natural, but in totalitarian times we have had no other food, only natural; what means that,
if we try now to buy only natural products, then everything will be about 3 times more expensive and more than the half of the population would have been dying of hunger!
And do you know why is this current economic crisis? Ah, because there are
no more totalitarian countries left! That's why. For back in 1990-ies the socialist countries helped the West, they saved the right-wing capitalism from dying, but now we can be saved, probably, only by the Martians, yet they, as it seems, have flown to some other galaxy before eons of time. The capitalism runs in crises, what are, in a way,
cycles, and in this case one may say that this is even good, because this is natural thing, like the very life, while in the socialist countries there were no such cycles and as a result of this they simply collapsed, so that I am wrong. But such view at the matters must obviously be wrong, because, hm, I just
can't be wrong, of course; or then the other social orders, like serfdom, slavery, etc., have also (like the socialism) not come incessantly from one crisis to another, because these crises are not natural, they are of overproduction (say, like by the ... locusts), and are solved usually only with the help of wars. And it is also silly to come to crises just because we live in affluence, isn't it so?
From what follows that I am right: the capitalism was bad when it was "conceived", there were made various tries to better it, which all failed, and now, in the era of common abundance, it is as if even worse than before in sense of just or righteous social order! If it is better in some aspect (say, we have now TV, cell phones, Internet, etc.), then this is due to the achievements of productive forces, not because of the very social order! That's it, and I am going now to my various propositions for bettering of the capitalism, what I hope will happen sometime in the future, if we will follow a good scenario, and I'll show you some good one.
2. The new socialism
My dear readers, let me first clear this very word, the Latin
socio, what I surely have said somewhere (at least in my enormous
Urrh, I suppose), that must mean some ... sauce or juice of the group of people (also, probably, cream), meaning that we all are "cooking or boiling" in a common pot. This is natural picture, but just in the moment of writing of this essay I have extended a bit the idea and can now say, that we are likened with ... pieces of meat, where most of us are skinny and meager but some are pretty greasy, yet we all are cooked together and become equally tasty! Do you like this simile? But it is more or less so, in the society there is a cream, but there is also some common flavour, we all are similar in something, or must be, there should not exist very big differences between the individuals, because this is not in the interest of peace, this may lead to troubles and disturbances. And then the communists are tied with the common things, with the catholic communion, if you want, or with communal expenses, and similar notions. So that not only the socialists or communists must have social programs but also the utmost right-wing, and it is usually so. Yes, but my social proposition is new and suitable for the left- and for the right- wing (I like to reconcile the poles).
On the other hand my idea is simply
actualized, made adequate to the new conditions of worldwide abundance, so that I do
not require at all for the persons to work for the society in order to receive some help from the side of the latter, no, I insist that
every born human being
must receive some
minimal allowance, in order to be able to lead some
decent life, according to the abilities of the society in the moment! Not how the communists have said: from everybody according to his abilities, and to everybody according to his needs, no, only the last portion of the statement: to everybody according to his
basic needs! Yes, I am bigger communist than the most convinced communists, although I have never been communist, and will never become one, to be sure. So how is this possible, am I not contradicting myself, and what include these basic needs?
Ah, the needs are easy, and I will use the known on the West gradation of 5 levels of things, which a person usually wants to have -- being called also
wanting animal --, namely: food, shelter, sex (or continuation of the gender), career-making (or self-expression), and improvement of his individuality. In this case the basic needs are the first 3, including the sex, but I think that under the current affluent living conditions the career-making can and must also be included (if the person wants this, of course)! I have begun to express similar ideas probably before a decade, but especially in the last 5 years and under another pen-name. However it is I will explain to you now why I think so, is this possible, in what extent (i.e. how much has to be paid), and to what this will lead (because many of you will be afraid that this will lead to total laziness and lessening of the development).
The normal
future level of allowances is
1/2 MMS, where the latter stays for Minimal Monthly Salary, and it is obvious that we have to use some measure that will go in synchrony with standard of life (what I am doing for 20 or so years). Yes, but to the current moment this is a bit much, so that the minimal allowance
today -- because this can be applied even from yesterday (how we in Bulgaria like to say) -- is
1/3 MMS, to what level I have come from my personal experience, because I have received for about 5 years such pension and have lived quite good. (Before going to pension I have lived even
poorer for probably 2
decades, because I have studied too
much and am living in the most barbarous European country, but this is of another "opera".) And this in a worse than normal situation, because I am living alone (and you have to know that, e.g., 2 persons usually need 1.5 times of what 1 person needs). So that this is possible, I can assure you, if one is healthy, pays no rent for the living premises, cooks alone, does not smoke, meets with nobody, etc., what I am doing for a quarter of a century. At the same time, having in mind that an average monthly salary is usually 2 and 1/3 (how it is, practically) of MMS, this gives
7 times less than the average conditions for a working person, so that no
normal person will agree to live in such conditions, unless ... Unless one thinks that he (or she) has more important reasons for this (like: studying or developing himself in some field, raising up children, caring for ailing relatives, doing some scientific or sporting activity, etc., or else has simply higher moral values, is not greedy for money and things), what means that it is a matter of priorities of values!
This means that loafers or drug addicted etc. will hardly rush to live on such miserable income, but if they agree, then the better, because they are also human beings and their needs may otherwise be calculated to even higher level than this. And how have to be paid these allowances? Well, when it goes about money, and paid to
all people in a given country, than there must be founded a banking institution, which I will call here AllowBank (but on other places it is called differently), which must pay to every citizen older than passport age in the beginning of the month (say, from 3-rd each month) this allowance (or 35 %, 40 % MMS, how it is decided), which will be later
subtracted from all money received by the person during the month, if there is from what to subtract. From here follows that all payments to persons in the country must go via this bank (temporarily, at least), and that some people will live at the expense of the state (or the other citizens). But this bank will collect all payments from everywhere, also pensions, stipends, the money for sick leaves and unemployment, and whatever else exist in the country, it does not deny the other payments by various programs, not, it simply will stay above them, will be the higher security instance. That's it. And it will, naturally, have better look at all social matters in the country, and not only as statistics, but with the concrete names of all persons, so that it will be able to propose other programs for helping of people.
Now about the necessary money, will this be a heavy load for the state? Well, I don't think so, for various reasons. For one thing there exist many programs for payments, which will cover, say, 60 % of the needed money; then the payments for salaries in an average enterprise amount to about only 10 % of the assets of the company for a given period, so that in this case this will come to about 10 times less or only 4 % of state budget; then this will help for collecting of money in the bursary, what can quietly amount to 1 % of the budget, hence there leave about 3 %; then the percentage paid can be varied by the state, the necessary money will be seen at once after each month for the next, so that everything can be calculated in a manner that this bank will need not more than 1 single percent of the budget; and take also the big social impact of this idea over the whole country, because in this case money will be given
exactly to those
in need (it is not like the other socialist measures, like lower prices on bread or milk or whatever); then we are entirely
capable to do this, hence we
must do it, this is our duty (before the people); and do not forget also the current situation of affluent life, throwing out of many many products, not only food, and the super surpluses of money in these days (which have led to negative interest rates and /or paying when you put money in the account, i.e. the banks are full to bursting with money). And do not also forget the simple rule that money given to the poor will fast come in the hands of the ...
wealthy, surely, so that this will intensify the production,
help the economy.
Of course this money is not everything, there have to be provided living premises for everybody in severe need, also money for healthcare and education, and other needs, but at least this has to be done, and will be done in one or another way in the future (because, as I mentioned it, this measure is neither left- nor right- wing, it is good from every point of view). But there are two more moments here, and they are: constant
monitoring of
social status, or standard of life, or the income of every citizen, in order to be able to apply individual approach to everybody, providing goods and services on
different prices, and also introducing of special prices for some products, which can be named
social products (what is quite natural thing -- when we can increase the prices on some products with excise duties we must be able also to lessen the prices on some products considered as social ones). So, but here I will go a bit faster because this chapter is going to be twice longer than the previous one, and also there are not necessary many words here, everything is principally clear.
What concerns the monitoring it is partially done, because the revenue agency has (I suppose in all countries) all information about the income of everyone, only that it usually stays there, while here I want from it to be established for everybody one coefficient of his (or her) total income for the last year divided by the minimal income for the year (i.e. for each month, and then each month this is shifted with 1 month). In this way we must not have miserable people with income less then 1/3 (to 1/2) of MMS, but will have poor ones (with this coefficient to 1.0), then low-middle (with till 2.0), then middle (till 3.0), then high-middle (till 4.0 or even 5.0), and wealthy when higher, something of the kind. This coefficient must be accessible to all instances who will need it (what means practically everywhere, e.g., when paying educational taxes, or for health expenses, etc.). (Where, for example, in my poor Bulgaria, one bus ticket costs still about as much as one poorly living person spends per day for eating, really, my first pension before 6 years was equal to 2.83 such tickets daily, honest to God. Also if I must visit a physician I must pay each time nearly as much as my daily pension, but one never pays only once, the GP sends you to another doctor, also to make some analyses, and then the medicaments are just impossibly high. Such curiosities must simply not exist, i.e. bus tickets, bread, milk, etc, must be sold nearly twice cheaper to such persons.)
Then the introducing of social products is also not difficult, there must simply exist one more bank-card and when one is buying something he will get some reducing of the prices if is in the category below middle class (where fall probably
half of Bulgarian citizens with the coming of our democracy). From this nobody will suffer, I mean, neither the producer, nor the seller; in the end the
personalized discounts will be covered from the state budget, which will be filled in its own way, taking money whom those who have them, right?). When once introduced these cards will become very useful, and will be possible to react very fast to every special conditions; this mechanism could be used also by the producers or the shops, offering some products on different prices to different persons; there can be various categories of people (say, onco patients, drug addicted, elderly people, and so on). This is the way to preserve the capitalism as right-wing as it is generally, but to apply various socialist measures under this ruling, what otherwise is hardly possible to be done. In this way, according to my metaphor about the different morsels in one common pot, sunk in the sauce of the society, all will feel happy sizzling and well flavoured by their variety.
So this was about the giving to some people, and now we are going to the taking from them in the next chapter.
3. Frexploism or free exploitation
Now, people, free exploitation means really free, not when one is forced to this because of his hunger, so that this chapter relies on the previous and v.v., but let me first clear and stress on the point about the very exploitation and its
necessity. Etymologically the word exploitation means taking out of everything from a person (or a thing), this is obvious, and because of this people don't like it, but this
isn't honest, I'll tell you! Because, on the other hand, everybody
wants to be made to do everything to what he (or she) is capable, not with a whip, of course, but to make utmost efforts and to be rewarded properly. It is so also in the sex, where each of the partners wants to give everything to what he is able, and is even not glad if this does not happen with the given partner. Also the children exploit their parents and v.v., the animals, too, especially the pet dogs, agree and want to be exploited, and this is why they like so much this game of fetching and returning to the owner the thrown stick or ball, because in this way they delude themselves that are useful for something. In most cases one can not put all his strength in a task without some compulsion, and when so even he alone is not happy. So that let us take this for enough proof that all living things want to be exploited, providing that they will be rewarded and praised for this, only the way of compulsion changes and improves during the centuries.
How it changes? Well, beginning some 5 thousand years back in the history the ways of exploitation were changed in direction of higher ... freedom, surely, because the easier the life becomes the less compulsion is necessary, yet it was never done anything important without some compulsion, only that it has to correspond with the level of living standard (or, then, with the productive forces, according to the communists). Even under the socialism (or communism) exploitation existed, surely, I have worked under such conditions, I know this, where the only exploiter was the state (or Party and Government, like was the usual formulation). So that, people, look how clever (although clever
er than necessary) I avoid all contradictions between the capitalism and the communism, saying that the exploitation is simply unavoidable and ever present, where the communists stated that they are against it (yet it existed), and the capitalists do not call it openly so (yet it is again present). The reason why people do not like me much is that I am not capable of ... lying, and they want to be deluded (what is a known Latin proverb, which I often cite:
Mundus vult decipi). Even if all other ways for exploitation are denied or avoided will remain the
self-exploitation, but not all people are workaholics, you know.
OK, the future evolution of exploitation will be the free exploitation, which will be free because of the social allowances to everybody, which have to cover, in some approximation, the first
3 levels of desires (of food, shelter, continuation of gender), and if one is happy for the moment to want nothing more he is in his rights to live on the expenses of the state. In this way it turns that the last social orders are the following: feudalism, capitalism /communism, and then
frexploism or free exploitation. But people will want -- I am positive about this -- to be exploited because only the exploitation will lead to the 4-th level of desires, to the career-making or self-expression, and everybody will want this, up to some extent (in addition to at least 5 times lesser income than the average)! On the other hand, free or not, but the exploitation will be lessened in its
length, meaning that in the moment it is quite enough to work about
30 hours in a week, what does not mean only 5 days by 6 hours, no, it may also be 4 * 8 (or 7.5), or 3 * 9 (plus or not 3 hours in the 4-th day), something like this, what will provide much free time, so that people will not want to have
all their time free, the half of it is enough. (And, I can't vouch for this, but I have read in some German book that in the serfdom the serfs have worked roughly 3 days for the feudal, 3 days for themselves, and have had 1 day free, and they managed to have quite decent life for those times, while nowadays this must surely be more than enough.)
Also let me mention that for the current level of productive forces one whole salary is practically
not needed (and because of this I have told you that one can live good enough even on 1/3 MMS, and surely better on 0.4 to 0.5 MMS). So that I see no reasons why many people will not work on half a day basis and have on the average about 1 to 1.2 MMS; the reason why this is not widely spread today is the high level of exploitation which the owners impose (for higher profits -- which they do
not really need), but why do we need higher than necessary exploitation, especially if it is free and not compulsive? (Ah, people, I have made so
many social propositions that I alone am in a difficulty to tell you what is the best, it depends. For example, I have proposed one decimal calendar where the weeks will have by ... 6 days, where the half of this will be taken much easier. Or I have also proposed
partial pensioning, where after some age, say 50, one can begin
gradually to lessen the working hours in the week, receiving also some portion of his pension! Or have also come to the idea for
studying in one's old years, again after 50, what I have called
student honoris causa! And other ideas.)
Yet the money isn't, really, everything, there are also the so called
moral stimuli, on which the communists stressed much (because the times then were practically poor), which have lead to almost nothing, but they are not to be entirely thrown away. Id est, there must exist something what is not directly money, but contributes for the praising of the person, like: education, good appearance, fame of any kind, publicity, and other things. And I think that there could be paid some
renomee money, or
coupons, probably given by the state, of amount of 1/10 of the salary, which are divided in, say, 100 portions, and can be sent to everybody yet not used alone; they can be spent or not but not at once, where one can send only 3 portions to one person in a month; or then one can send them to somebody to act as go between, who can also only send them to other people. This can be made easy using some PIN code for the person, and one can quietly put this code at the bottom of his (her) picture, or carry some badges, and if you like this person you sent to him some coupons. There can as well exist also negative coupons of 10 times lesser amount to be sent to those who you do not like, and they will be subtracted from their income. Something like this, in order to
help the people with their accumulations of money, because there come times (like nowadays) when one needs something more than mere money, and because the money by the usual capitalism fulfill two functions, for personal use, and for enterprising, what I call simply exploitation, but about this I will speak in the next chapter.
4. Expropriation post mortem
Yes, I want to perform some expropriation of money (or assets), only not in the communist way, but in an utterly painless manner, after the death of the person! I have come to this idea before 20 years and it, really, solves all problems with
big money from one's birth, in the simplest way, there will be
no big money inherited! Brilliant, right? And what means big or small money? Well, I don't know why it is so, but people usually keep till about 3 of their monthly salaries, what, if we use the once accepted measure of 1 MMS (what, e.g., for Bulgaria somewhere about the end of 2022 will make about 400 Euro, but for one Germany or France will give about 3,000), and rounded to order of 10, will give 10 MMS (what for Bulgaria will make 4,000 and for Germany 30,000 Euro). This is sum which people use for themselves, for the family, and keep usually in currency. Then big property is from 100 MMS and above (what for Bulgaria makes 40,000 and for Germany 300,000 Euro), and such money just
must be used for some business activity, this is obvious, else it will diminish with the time (in its purchasing power parity, PPP). My proposition about
disinheritance, so to say, concerns only
received property bigger than 1,000 MMS (or more than 3 mln in a normal country), what I call
Exploitation Minimum, EM! (As you see, I am pretty liberal, so that you can with clear conscience propose me for President of whatever country.) And note that I said "received", i.e. this is the part for one person, but the whole property can as well be several times bigger.
And how this has to be done? Well, by
drastic inheritance tax, which goes by logarithm (because this, or the exponent, is
infinitely smooth curve). Having in mind that in log scale the log curve is
straight line -- if you don't believe me then consult some mathematical book -- I propose to pass it through the points of 1 MMS, where it remains the same, and 10 MMS, where it will give
only 2 MMS! (But there can be other similar points used.) The taken part of the inheritance will go to the state and to the region and probably for giving by ... lotteries, in equal parts, so that everybody will be happy. And why I think that this will be even
better also for the very enterprise? Ah, because the Germans have a saying that the first generation builds the company, the second enlarges it, and the third ... wastes it! And such big property can not be made for one generation (about 25 - 30 years). So that my drastic inheritance law will touch only really big companies, which anyway must be restructured, and, the most important thing: they are not governed by the proprietor
alone, he will surely have hired economists (it pays to pay money to others in such cases). (For more details look in "About the ownership ...", in my big book with publicistics.) Also the lotteries are deserved, because such big money is not accumulated with
honest labour, it grows by itself like a dough (how it is said in the English).
Another moment here is what to do with those money in the range from 10 to 100 MMS, because they are not good for the business but are too big for private usage! This is one of the reasons why I, together with the communists (yet
not being such person), state that the accumulation of money under the capitalism is
not good, especially in the current days when there are even no families more. The money till 10 MMS can be spent, what is done usually ... silly, yes, for gambling, for broads, and for other unnecessary things, but here nothing can be made, such are the humans (especially when young), but when bigger one begins to have serious problems and is forced to spent time and money in order to lose not so much, having more money than he can spend, i.e. than he needs. Also when one has really big money, above 100 MMS, it becomes easier, because he can buy
real property, land, bars of gold, even gold mines or petrol fields, but with money in the strip of 10 - 100 MMS this is impossible; one can buy several cars, but this is not investment, they become fast obsolete. Here something has to be done, but nobody cares, the sharks simply gulp the small fry; I will propose some measures in the chapter about the families, but there must be taken global measures. The current practice (and this for millenniums) is when people begin to live little bit better, they begin to feel strong and go to fight some wars, what, especially under the capitalism, turns to lead to nothing good (because we like now to have world wars, not small local conflicts).
So that you see that I am thinking about the
economy of capitalism, not just proposing some form of communism, which will in the end turn to become totalitarian and to make life dull and boring. In any case, free exploitation, together with the other measures described here, will be much better than the classical capitalism with its incessant crises.
5. Troiism of powers
Now to my idea from 2007 about at least 3 powers in the Government. This is quite natural extension of Parliaments with 2 Houses (not that they are so different how I propose here, but still), and my proposition is to have 3 really different Houses, chosen in entirely different ways, so that I am not only chewing some old ideas of other people, I have quite original own ideas. More precisely in the future, where some, let us say
reasonocracy will reign, will exist the following 3 Houses: of the
Rulers (HR), of the
People (HP), and of the
Wise persons (HW), who may also be called senior representatives, or moral examples, idols, social leaders, et cetera!
The Rulers are as if natural, yet such approach is used only in highly centralized or totalitarian governments; these persons -- and let them be
100 exactly, what is good to be applied also for the other Houses -- must be
professionals, what means that they in
no case should be chosen by incompetent masses, surely not, they must be elected in some way used between them, like this is done for all commissions (in the sports, or arts, etc.), i.e. in
not democratic way! After all, the very Roman pope is chosen in similar way. Every big boss can have some, let us call it
Exploiter Book (EB), where in some form will be noted his (her) achievements in ruling of many people (for more details look in one of my Manifests -- I have a whole
dozen of them). But in whatever form the ability to govern or make people behave is evaluated there must be some Exploiters Council (or how you call it) and it will chose the very persons. So this House will do the real ruling, it will occupy the Ministries, it may have some Executive Bureau of 10 persons permanently working, it will make new laws and change old ones, but it will
not vote them; it is silly persons who have done something to evaluate this thing, but this is only one of the absurdities of current democracy. This House will be ever present and fulfill the functions of caretaker Government, if there are some problems with the other Houses, yet it
can not approve new laws or important decisions.
Then the House of People is as if clear but it is
not, because the choosing of its members must be done
arbitrary, what is never applied in the real democracies (what is one more of the absurdities of this silly form of governing)! The best proposition in my view is to choose by 2 persons from each year of birth beginning with 20 including and ending with 70 excluding, what will make 100 persons. This is simple random choice (where there are ways for making the choice not able to be falsified choosing even the digits of the date in parallel spheres), but there can be used also more sophisticated ways of choice with parameters (like: age, sex, education, ethnicity, etc.). These persons must
only evaluate the ready decisions (laws, etc.), give their yes-word about everything, but not be asked what they want (for this will make one big mess). And, naturally, if not at least half of the people approve something then it is not accepted, it remains the old situation for the time being. Ah, and because there is a well known saying that the voice of people is the voice of God, let me clear this point a bit. So, yes, it is the voice of God, yet
not because it is right decision -- for in probably 90 percent of the cases this will be
wrong decision, ha-ha --, but because one has no rights to ignore the meaning of big human masses, when God has created us so silly, then so be it! Did you get it? Because of this the people must always be asked, but they must also be educated, and for this purpose is the third House.
The last House of Wise persons or idols, moralizers, etc., is the House where the democratic voting will be performed, yet not exactly in the traditional form, but
iteratively! This means that on first iteration all grown people have the right to vote for, say, 5 to 10 persons, but not only on the top, also between their relatives or good acquaintances; then on each next level vote. say. the first 10 % from the arranged list of the chosen with most votes for them; and so on. In this way for 3 to 5 tours the election will be done and there will remain at the end also one big group of, let them be, 1000 persons, for more difficult votings there. Such elections can be done by Internet even each year, but let it be each second year; and this can as well be done openly. Those people can be priests, bosses, pop stars, footballers, and so on, the choice is not limited, but these are the persons who the people like and will listen to them, they simply
must exist in the future Government. So they will also give their yes-word about everything (like those from HP), but they will have also rights to make
propositions to the HR, to explain what they find necessary to the HP, and there will be carried the real democratic discussions, yet they also do
not govern, they are taken for competent consultants!
And as to the parties, well, they have
no place in the future governments! Why? Ah, because the parties are, in a way, pyramids, where on the top stands a pair of persons who decide and command, and in the parterre are a heap of people who have no right of own voice, really! This
deprives the people
of personality, this is not progressive trait, surely, hence they have to be thrown out of there. Yes, but this is concerning the Government, else parties can exist, like also religious believes -- everything is simple, if one begins to think a bit.
So this was about the capitalism and the democracy, but there are other questions that are as if auxiliary, yet they are also very important for the picture of the future, and I will discuss them in the next chapter.
6. Families and population
Here the population is very old question for me, but the new families are quite new topic, from before a pair of years. Let me begin with the families and tell you first, why I am so troubled about this? Well, because we adjust to the situation, the most affected by this, the children, manage somehow to like this (to be brought up mainly by their mothers), but they have no experience and neither have other alternative, yet this is
worsening of the situation! (Because, let me not indulge in such elementary judgments, but when God has created two sexes then they both have to take part in the upbringing of the children, naturally; if this is not so with the animals, or some of them, say, the fishes and insects, live not knowing at all their genitors, this is for the reason that all those beings rely chiefly on the reflexes, they are made perfect for the task of living, while the humans are new experiment even for the God-Nature, they need more passing from the older generations to the new one.) By the humans both sexes are necessary and have what to pass to the offsprings, but now it is not so, most of the children are simply
deprived of their fathers. And this deprivation is not at all in the interest of the women, no, they are just sillier than the men and have still not adjusted to new kind of family relations.
And what is the right behavior here? Well, in two words: to make distinction between family and sex! But there are many things to be said in this connection, and because it still goes about the old families and I mean chiefly some new quasi families, I will jump over many details (you have just to read all my works, especially the big book with publicistics). My proposition includes signing of marriage contract only
temporarily, for 5 years by default, with usual continuation for 3 more years, and with
separate ownership of everything, including the ...
children! By default has to be taken that if neither of the parents has children then the new born child is given to the parent of the same sex with the child; if the child is of the sex of a parent who already has a child but the other parent still has not a child, then it is given (at least temporarily) to the other parent no matter the sex; and if both parents have by a child (no matter of this or former marriage) then is proceeded like in the case of no child, but if a better correspondence with the sexes of parents exists then can be done swapping of one previously born child with this (if from these parents and they agree to this); in all cases more than 2 children to a parent must not be allowed! And what means the latter not allowing? Well, say, for the first child one receives 1/4 of the MMS, for the 2-nd he or she
pays 1/4 of the MMS, and for the next the paid sum is increased with 1/2 of MMS, and other measures are taken (e.g., there is made a list of
bad citizens where all such persons are included and in various cases are taken penalty measures).
Also each person is to have 3 names, where the first is personal and given
temporary by the parents till the age of 12 is completed, when the child has to approve it or choose a new one; the 2-nd name is given by the second parent (who does not own the child), and is by default the family name of this parent but can be changed by wish of this person; the 3-rd or family name is given by the first parent (to whom the child belongs) with the same additions about the name. This simplifies much all situations, so that the marriage can be easily signed or dissolved.
Together with these measures are to be made also steps for building of new
freely chosen families, of family substitutes, or, let me call them here,
family communes, famcoms! Why is this necessary and what it means? Ah, it is necessary because here may be applied
professional approach, and the children rarely go in the steps of their parents, so that they could find in this way better correspondence with their own interests, this can be a way of
apprenticeship, the family business is a good tendency and it must somehow be preserved; or the children may want to do this simply for a change, this is another freedom, people! So that these famcoms can be built as
non-profit organizations, by elderly people, family /-ies or not, who have what to leave after them and their own children don't bother about this (this is also based on my own experience, so that I think that such things can happen by other people, too). The exact status of these organizations must be made by jurists, but the idea is that the property simply passes later in the hands of left persons, this must look like one big family from the old days. And people have now what to leave, at least a home, but the point is to take this as natural, not as (partial) disinheritance of own children; and also to tie stronger the society, because, look here: there must be several
levels of grouping of people. What levels I mean? Ah, there is the individual (who can't be ... divided, by the way, is single), then the family, then the local area or village (or region of a town), then the country, then in many cases also group of several countries or states, and then the whole humanity. This makes 5 to 6 levels, but nowadays we tend to recognize only the individual and then the whole humanity, because all countries become more and more equalized, and there are no villages, in the towns people live more secluded, and neither big families exist nor small ones can be found today; there is the language barrier but even it can be overcome now with the help of the English, so that at least the stars in some area (sports, arts, etc.) can live in whatever country. But intermediate levels are necessary.
OK, but just in the moment of writing of this essay I have come to the simple idea of ... adoption! Yes, without whatever non-profit organizations one can simply adopt
several persons, and not exactly children, so that on the average one will have a pair of biological children and a pair of adopter ones; but if one will have only one child de jure one must adopt also the others, where he or she is one of the parents, so that adding a pair of children more will make no big fuss, right? And mark, please, that this means not only that one will have, say, 5 children, while according to the law he /she has only one, but that the same can be applied also about the
children, and they will have about 5
parents, in this generalized meaning! Well, I think that this is brilliant, it remains only to convince the other people that it is for the good of the whole humanity, that this will tie the people even better than before!
And as to the population, I have repeated many times that the proper population on the whole world is about 100 million people, but in no case more than 1 billion! I will jump the explanations of these my calculations here, and will mention only that being, say, 10 times less then we are now, this will mean (especially taking into account all abilities of robotized production) that each of us will simply have 10 times
more things, on the average (and in order to make this average also true in most of the cases, for this are needed only proper social measures, noting more)!
With this I finish also this chapter and am going to the conclusive one.
7. Conclusion
OK, it seems that I have mastered also this last social essay, about the good future, and will only summarize now the results. So the capitalism is bad, because it recognizes only the power of money, this is totalitarianism, like also the communism, which is rather a kind of religion, to work for the others, what, if overdone, is simply silly. Then the socialism, as far as it has existed from deep antiquity, must also be preserved in some form in the future, and this is even in the best possible form, to give to everybody something, when possible up to 1/2 of MMS, but not less than 0.4 of it. Then this future social order deserves to be called
frexploism, meaning free exploitation, exactly as giving of everything to what one is capable, against decent payment, if one wants this, because in this way he (she) makes career, pushes himself up in the society. After this I explained that some measures have to be taken for redistribution of really big chunks of property or money, what is easiest to be done by the inheritance, introducing drastic taxes, leaving about 1/10-th and even less of the inheritance, if it comes about sums higher than about 1,000 MMS, because such assets are not personally managed, this is much above the average ownership. Then I jumped to the sphere of social governing and proposed the most natural thing, to introduce three powers, the Rulers, the People, and the Wise persons, which are to be chosen in entirely different way, and perform also different functions, but that are proper for them as representatives of different layers of the society. After what I touched the question with the disappearing families, what has to be done to preserve them if possible, as well what has to be done to introduce new freely chosen families, what has to contribute for strengthening of the relations between the individuals in the society; as also mentioned again the proper number of people on the globe, what has to be about 100 millions, or a pair of times bigger but not much.
What else can I tell you, when expect this to be my tenth and latest social essay, because having exceeded 70 years I am bound to think about the sooner meeting with my Creator, as it is said? Well, I can tell you this: try to
read me, because I may not be able to deceive you in the best wished by you form, but I am telling right things, which hardly one out of 100 will succeed to formulate (rather one out of halt thousand). After all, I am using funny way of writing, you must not be all so silly not to be able to understand me. And it is necessary to understand and follow me because this will
save you many troubles and disasters. Anyway, this is the end of the prosaic part. Follows only the traditional poetical Appendix in English, which is also this time exactly
100 lines long, where the 6 basic parts are of the kind of so called by me Myrskets (15 lines, ending in this way: AABB CDCD EFFE GGG, if you look at the rhymes). (With the remark that the char "º" is used below for making of additional syllable, similarly to the apostrophe, "'", used for missing of character.)
Jun 2022
8. Poetical appendix:
Nice Future
-- 0 --
What is this the future, let me tell you first.
Ah, it's agriculture on the
social acre!
Meaning that the present for it 's-to be cursed,
it will grow what we have sown, we are the makers;
in this way is everything what happens just.
-- 1 --
Now the cap'talisºm, it is re'lly bad,
so that if you are with fables only fed
I'll disturb your feelings, bag to be excused,
but so many spit at it, you've to be used.
Bad 's-not meºre socialism, or, then, fascism,
which to the extremities have went and go,
bad 's-the usual current, right-wing cap'talism,
for a reason that you, probably, don't know.
This is 'cause
totalitariºan it's too,
recognizing th'poºwºer of money only;
this has never happened, surely must it wrong be,
it was bad conceived and something we must do!
We must add to it some moral values,
shift the money to some hind-side alley,
so that let us join and make this sally.
-- 2 --
First the socialism I'll mention but of kind
so much generous that leaves all dreams behind,
'cause receive will
every person, if of age,
some allowºance evºen in no work engaged!
This will not be much, enough just to survive,
half the min'mal salary, or evºen third,
but if he has other goals set in his life
he'll feel happy, as if he's of higher birth!
When he something wins, the givºen is subtracted,
but if can't be done this -- he's the right to live;
plus that given sums to those who are in grief
land in th'hands of ... wealthy, hence we have right acted.
For the future this is necessary,
and we are so wealthy noºw, very,
so that, to feel humans, must be carried!
-- 3 --
Socialism will further
help us to ensuºre
better, that is
free, exploºitatºion, suºre!
'Cause when one will never face a hunger death
he will rush to work for more cash, you may bet!
Thus the future order will be
frexploº
ism,
and will everybody want just to be used,
t'make career, t'push himself ahead, for isn't
this a
higher wish, and you are left to choose?!
Easy 'xploºitatºion is a happy thing,
with the help or modern tools and automatºion,
t'overcome the difficulties is temptatºion,
evºen in the free time one will work and sing.
Will be worked aboºut only half the week,
chiefly hitting buttons, or, then, giving clicks,
the results, yet, will be quite substantºial, big.
-- 4 --
Other thing is the inheritance to settºle,
when it's very big, of centners golden metºal.
In such case it must be
drastically cut,
'cause it isºn't healthy for the heºir's guts.
Enterprise so big is by a hired staff
managed, so that ownership is only formal;
giving to the state and chance what is above
some quite wealthy limit is correct and normal!
Small-scale business, this is what's the real one,
what is very big it to the state must go.
Inexperienced owner, he can only blow
everything and fast, hence this is rightly done!
In this way we will one natural process
back, prevent the wasting of what's in excess,
also give some pleasure to those who have less!
-- 5 --
Then in-th' future must exist a
troº
iism,
wheºre noºw present mostly is monism!
In the Government of every givºen state
must exist three powºers, I will name them, wait.
These are firstly Rulers, in a Hoºuse theºre,
who professionals are, chosen by themselves.
Then come common Peopºle, just from everywheºre,
chosen arbitrary, to approve, as well.
In the third, then, Hoºuse must be persons Wise
democratically chosen, iter`ative;
they don't rule, but think, discuss, propose, and great is
theºir role as moralizers, to advise!
In this way knows everybody what's his part
in the game called d`emocracy from the start,
and the reason from his standpoint tries to guard.
-- 6 --
In the end the question with the families
comes, for it's important, never should be missed.
Heºre what is necessary's to succeed
to divide the sex from bringing up the "seeds".
Yet we must try
chosen families to build,
wheºre children will go like
apprentices,
to some elder persons working in the field
as professionals, what must both parties please!
Or must then ...
adoption be applied more oft,
trying so to reach the number five of heºirs,
what will mean the younger five will, too, have
parents.
what will tie the peopºle better, in way soft.
And the populatºion on entire globe
must be lessened ...
hundred times, and if we cope
with this, in the paradise we'll live, I hope!
-- 7 --
All this means the future can be made quite good,
if we
global view to reach somehºow try!
Otherwise, I'm sorry. but must change the mood
and will tell you that en mass will further die,
between moºuntains of homes and clothes and food!
Jun 2022