Is humanism the future of mankind? (short version)
Aleksandar Sarovic
Humanism requires public ownership of the means of production. When will
the capitalists accept humanism voluntarily? They will do it when they will
be as well or better off under humanism as compared to capitalism. How will
that be possible? It will be possible through the formation of a system of
state shareholding for the joint ownership of all the means of production
in a region. The stock ownership could give them absolute security, a
decent income, and a good measure of power in society. The inhabitants in a
region would all have a number of state shares in proportion to the value
of the past work of each and would receive incomes in a partially
proportion of it. Assessment of these relative values would be subject of
negotiation, but certainly workers will receive much lower incomes based on
the results of their past work than capitalists will.
Why would the workers accept such a system? In the first place, the new
system will be ruled by the government which could make full employment
possible through the operation of a market economy. In particular, it will
be necessary to have a labor market. Every job should be filled by
competition among workers, with their comparative productivity determined
by the measure of the market. And each job should go to the workers asking
the lowest price for doing the same work with same productivity (a
remuneration over and above what the worker would be entitled to receive
for previous labour). When workers set the price of their own labour in the
labour market, that will result in the most objective determination of
wages and greatest satisfaction with the incomes earned.
Such an economy will need an efficient system for assigning responsibility
for accomplishing production. Decrease of individual and collective
productivity and profits will decrease a number of state stocks and incomes
proportionally to workers' responsibility and certainly vice versa.
Increase of productivity and profits will increase a number of state stocks
and incomes proportionally to workers' contribution. This system could
provide greater economic benefit (production and stability) to the people
than capitalism.
The development of computer technology has made full democracy possible in
any region. People should make their own decisions on everything to do with
their own interest and participate directly in deciding on all main
society's matters of common concern through general referendums in which
each voter will be able to evaluate any proposed measure on a variable
scale of acceptability prepared by the elected parliament. The average
degree of acceptability voted for in each case will together display the
total needs of everybody overall.
It would not be possible, though, for the people to make directly all of
the decisions on governing their society. Many decisions would have to be
made by leaders, representatives or mediators. Such a shortfall in the
degree of direct democracy practiced would have to be combated by means of
an efficient system for the people to exercise control over the people: a
system of democratic anarchy. This can be accomplished by giving each one
the right to judge the doings of every member of society. A favorable
evaluation overall should directly slightly increase a number of state
stocks and earnings of every individual so judged. A negative vote overall
should result in directly penalization by slightly reducing individual's
number of state stocks and income. Since everybody would be free to arrive
at their assessment of people unrestricted by any written rules, such
democracy amounts to a form of anarchy. Democratic anarchy will make every
member of society bring about the greatest possible benefits and the least
possible harms to all the people, in the widest sense, and this will be
what makes society productive.
This system will demystify authoritarian values and teach people to live in
accordance with their own nature, thus relieving people of all those sort
of alienation found in society. It will open up natural and harmonious
social relations. The preceding are only some of the main points of the new
conception about the development of society I have explained in more detail
in my unpublished book: "Humanism - A Philosophical, Ethical, Political and
Economic Study of the Development of Society".
Aleksandar Sarovic
PS Feel free to ask, criticize or contribute to the topic.
Jennifer Palonus
"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>PS Feel free to ask, criticize or contribute to the topic.
Please stop dirtying the good name of "Humanism".
Jenny
Stinky Felix
"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>Humanism requires public ownership of the means of production.
<much snipping>
Alex, I don't understand how you can assert without argument the
premise that humanism is linked to any economic theory? I can imagine
no logical basis for such a claim. Please, enlighten me.
Stinky
Tom Asquith
In article <32ccc837...@news.directnet.com>, stink...@bigfoot.com says...
>"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
Actually, if you go back into the UseNet archives 2 years (roughly April-May) you'd
find someone had proposed an economic theory based on humanism.
Also, if you checked even further you'd find a historical link between
liberalism and humanism which has been the source of much ecclesiastical
debate over the years. So it's not inconceivable that there can be a connection
between the two--mind you, I don't know about Aleksandr's allegation that
humanism means necessarily public ownership.
--
----
Tom Asquith
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta
---------------------------------------------------
"There is not a more mean, stupid, dastardly
pitiful, selfish, spiteful, envious, ungrateful,
animal than the Public. It is the greatest of
cowards, for it is afraid of itself."
--William Hazlitt
---------------------------------------------------
Aleksandar Sarovic
Stinky Felix <stink...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
<32ccc837...@news.directnet.com>...
> "Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>
> >Humanism requires public ownership of the means of production.
> <much snipping>
>
>
> Alex, I don't understand how you can assert without argument the
> premise that humanism is linked to any economic theory? I can imagine
> no logical basis for such a claim. Please, enlighten me.
>
> Stinky
>
I've found that nobody reads more than one page in the usernet. It is very hard
to present 300 pages book on it. Humanism does not mean watching a charitable
concert on TV and contributing five bucks to hungry people. Humanism does not
mean a system where human beings have to sell themselves to the capitalists in
order to get a job. It is closer to slavery. Humanism requires public ownership
of the means of production in purpose to be created a equal right for every
human being to work at any working place by the production competition. Yes,
Humanism is closer to so called Socialism, but requires the recognition of
results of workers' past work (and their ancestors) presented by the state
stocks with which the people will show their contribution in building
everything what were made in their society and take benefits for it. Of course,
Humanisam requires the right for the direct participation of every human being
in the proces of making any decisions affecting their iterests, etc...
Aleksandar
LQuest
jpal...@halcyon.com (Jennifer Palonus) wrote:
>"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>Jenny
Jenny,
Please, indulge my ignorance: What is YOUR working definition of "Humanism"?
Thanks.
--Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dangers to a society may be mortal without being immediate." -- Thomas Sowell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksandar Sarovic
Tom Asquith <tasq...@pop.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
<5ajcn1$f...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...
> In article <32ccc837...@news.directnet.com>, stink...@bigfoot.com
says...
>
> >"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>
> >>Humanism requires public ownership of the means of production.
> ><much snipping>
>
> >Alex, I don't understand how you can assert without argument the
> >premise that humanism is linked to any economic theory? I can imagine
> >no logical basis for such a claim. Please, enlighten me.
>
> Actually, if you go back into the UseNet archives 2 years (roughly April-May)
you'd
> find someone had proposed an economic theory based on humanism.
How can I get there?
> Also, if you checked even further you'd find a historical link between
> liberalism and humanism which has been the source of much ecclesiastical
> debate over the years.
Liberalism and humanism could be conected, even slave holding and humanism if a
slaveholder is human, but humanism means more.
> So it's not inconceivable that there can be a connection
> between the two--mind you, I don't know about Aleksandr's allegation that
> humanism means necessarily public ownership.
> Tom Asquith
I repost my article for you-)
Aleksandar Sarovic
PS Feel free to ask, criticize or contribute to the topic.
Jennifer Palonus
lib...@airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
>jpal...@halcyon.com (Jennifer Palonus) wrote:
>
>>"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>
>>>PS Feel free to ask, criticize or contribute to the topic.
>
>>Please stop dirtying the good name of "Humanism".
>
>>Jenny
>
>Jenny,
>
>Please, indulge my ignorance: What is YOUR working definition of "Humanism"?
Well, AFAIK, "Humanism" is any philosophy where the measure of good &
evil is based on what they do to human life, as opposed to appealing to
God or duty or some external/arbitrary judge. (Either a human's
longevity or quality of life, etc., depending on the flavor.)
TECHNICALLY, Alexsandar's communism would be a humanistic position,
since he thinks it'll be good for humans' lives. But of course that
claim is nonsense.
His post struck me as an attempt to lose the term "socialism" or
"communism" or "collectivism" & all the well-deserved baggage they
carry. Sort of like Jane Fonda & Tom Hayden peddling "economic
democracy" in the 70s & 80s instead of calling it "socialism".
I'm not too familiar with the history of Humanism, except for the
Humanist Manifesto, written in 1933, which is actually quite compatible
with Objectivism. (Except for point #14 which calls for socialism - this
WAS 1933 after all!)
Here's the 1933 Humanist Manifesto (skipping the introduction)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created.
2) Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has
emerged as the result of a continuous process.
3) Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional
dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
4) Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization,
as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a
gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment
and his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture
is largely molded to that culture.
5) Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern
science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of
human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of
realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to
determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means
of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relation to human
needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the
scientific spirit and method.
6) We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism,
modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
7) Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which
are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It
includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation -
all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human
living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer
be maintained.
8) Religioius humanism considers the complete realization of human
personality to be at the end of man's life and seeks its development and
fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the
humanist's social passion.
9) In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the
humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of
personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
10) It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and
attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the
supernatural.
11) Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge
of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes
will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that
humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage
sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
12) Believing that religioin must work increasingly for joy in living,
religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage
achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
13) Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions
exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation,
transformation, control, and direction of such associations and
institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose
and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their
ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must
be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function
effectively in the modern world.
14) The humanists are firmly convinced that existing aquisitive and
profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a
radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A
socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end
that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The
goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people
voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists
demand a shared life in a shared world.
15) We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it;
(b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and (c)
endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not
merely for the few. By this positive _morale_ and intention humanism
will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques
and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the
religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest
for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last
becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the
world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its
achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.
(Signed) J.A.C. Fagginer Auer, E. Burdette Backus, Harry Elmer Barnes,
L.M. Birkhead, Raymond B. Bragg, Edwin Arthur Burtt, Ernest Caldecott,
A.J. Carlson, John Dewey, Albert C. Dieffenbach, John H. Dietrich,
Bernard Fantus, William Floyd, F.H. Hankins, A. Eustace Haydon,
Llewellyn Jones, Robert Morss Lovett, Harold P. Marley, R. Lester
Mondale, Charles Francis Potter, John Herman Randall Jr., Curtis W.
Reese, Oliver L. Reiser, Roy Wood Sellars, Clinton Lee Scott, Maynard
Shipley, W. Frank Swift, V.T. Thayer, Eldred C. Vanderlaan, Joseph
Walker, Jacob J. Weinstein, Frank S.C. Wicks, David Rhys Williams, Edwin
H. Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad about point #14. After all, it contradicts #3, & has been proven
to contradict #15.
But except for that, it's quite good, and quite compatible with
Objectivism. Or to put it another way, Objectivism is the only
real-world application of Religious Humanism that can work in the long
run, since it's the only one that's self-consistent & rigorously
rational.
Jenny
-----------------------------------------jpal...@graphicaldynamics.com
"ClockMan95 [is] vastly superior to System Agent."
-- PC Magazine 19nov96 First Looks
http://www.graphicaldynamics.com
Stinky Felix
"Aleksandar Sarovic" <aleks...@front.net> offered:
>I've found that nobody reads more than one page in the usernet. It is very hard
>to present 300 pages book on it. Humanism does not mean watching a charitable
>concert on TV and contributing five bucks to hungry people. Humanism does not
>mean a system where human beings have to sell themselves to the capitalists in
>order to get a job. It is closer to slavery. Humanism requires public ownership
>of the means of production in purpose to be created a equal right for every
>human being to work at any working place by the production competition. Yes,
>Humanism is closer to so called Socialism, but requires the recognition of
>results of workers' past work (and their ancestors) presented by the state
>stocks with which the people will show their contribution in building
>everything what were made in their society and take benefits for it. Of course,
>Humanisam requires the right for the direct participation of every human being
>in the proces of making any decisions affecting their iterests, etc...
>ives
>Aleksandar
>
>
Well I can certainly agree that slavery is intolerable, but
there is sure a wide gulf of alternatives between pure private
ownership and pure public ownership. Both extremes have been tried
with disastrous results, and I don't believe any pure economies are
practiced on a large scale in the world today. If history can be
employed as a judge, capitalism was more successful in moving toward a
mixed economy than was communism, which collapsed utterly.
Frankly, in terms of economic utility, I think private
ownership and public ownership of capital are required. I do not see
any stigma in selling one's efforts; this is certainly different from
the emotional position you take when you describe this as selling
one's self. And when it comes right down to it, one is certainly
better off a slave to a corporation than a slave to a state. At least
one has the hope of changing corporate affiliations without having to
abandon one's homeland.
What must be accomplished is a stable way to boost the
negotiating power of individuals against powerful corporations. So
far, this has not been accomplished. Unionism failed due to internal
corruption, a condition which I think is unavoidable amongst elite
groups in positions of power.
Within a predominately capitalist economy, a likely strategy
to improve the bargaining power of an individual would emphasize
effective communication and effective mobility. As technology
progresses, communication is rapidly improving and mobility is
becoming less and less important. Secondly, entry barriers to the job
market must be reduced. In a technological society, this is best
accomplished by providing a strong education so that young adults are
not forced to return to school during their early careers to receive
the basic training required to rise above subsistence wages.
Is a route to a humanistic economy available through
communism? The question is almost moot. The last large communist
economy left on Earth is that of the Chinese. They may move their
country to a balanced economy; it is hard to tell if that is even
their intent. But one must remember that China is a very special
situation. That area of the world would probably have looked much
like Europe, except that its first emperor chose genocide as a means
for encouraging unification. In fact, he attempted to kill every
person in that part of the world who did not speak his language and
very nearly succeeded.
I do not believe you will find many humanists who would
advocate a repeat of his experiment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stinky
stink...@bigfoot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Howard
Stinky Felix <stink...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
<32d2adcb...@news.directnet.com>...
> Is a route to a humanistic economy available through
> communism? The question is almost moot. The last large communist
> economy left on Earth is that of the Chinese. They may move their
> country to a balanced economy; it is hard to tell if that is even
> their intent. But one must remember that China is a very special
> situation. That area of the world would probably have looked much
> like Europe, except that its first emperor chose genocide as a means
> for encouraging unification. In fact, he attempted to kill every
> person in that part of the world who did not speak his language and
> very nearly succeeded.
Which emperor was that, and when did he live? Chinese is a very ancient
language, and one of the original writing systems still remaining.
What did happen in Europe? The Roman Empire expanded, then it's European
offshoots expanded around the world, so that now the Latin letters of the
original Roman language are used throughout the world, unlike Chinese or
other Asian letters. That sounds a little more ambitious than that Chinese
emperor. Again, who was he, and when did he live?
> I do not believe you will find many humanists who would
> advocate a repeat of his experiment.
>
Really. Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini weren't humanists.
Stinky Felix
"Jim Howard" <jho...@vvm.com> offered:
>
>
>Stinky Felix <stink...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><32d2adcb...@news.directnet.com>...
>
>> Is a route to a humanistic economy available through
>> communism? The question is almost moot. The last large communist
>> economy left on Earth is that of the Chinese. They may move their
>> country to a balanced economy; it is hard to tell if that is even
>> their intent. But one must remember that China is a very special
>> situation. That area of the world would probably have looked much
>> like Europe, except that its first emperor chose genocide as a means
>> for encouraging unification. In fact, he attempted to kill every
>> person in that part of the world who did not speak his language and
>> very nearly succeeded.
>
>Which emperor was that, and when did he live? Chinese is a very ancient
>language, and one of the original writing systems still remaining.
>What did happen in Europe? The Roman Empire expanded, then it's European
>offshoots expanded around the world, so that now the Latin letters of the
>original Roman language are used throughout the world, unlike Chinese or
>other Asian letters. That sounds a little more ambitious than that Chinese
>emperor. Again, who was he, and when did he live?
Emperor Chin (or Qin), 221-206 BCE. The country is named after his
dynasty, and he is credited with building the Great Wall and burying
thousands of terra-cotta warriors to protect him from the hoards he
killed whom he feared would seek revenge after his death.
>
>> I do not believe you will find many humanists who would
>> advocate a repeat of his experiment.
>>
>Really. Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini weren't humanists.
Really. Humansm is designed as any system or mode of thought or
action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate.
Hitler and Mussolini were hardly practitioners, although Hirohito may
possibly be considered a convert (It's really amazing, isn't it, at
what a coupla' atom bombs will do). Furthermore, you can't find these
people (they're dead).
~~~~~
Stinky.
Don't get mad, get lost.
~~~~~
Aleksandar Sarovic
Stinky Felix <stink...@bigfoot.com> wrote
> >
> Well I can certainly agree that slavery is intolerable, but
> there is sure a wide gulf of alternatives between pure private
> ownership and pure public ownership. Both extremes have been tried
> with disastrous results, and I don't believe any pure economies are
> practiced on a large scale in the world today. If history can be
> employed as a judge, capitalism was more successful in moving toward a
> mixed economy than was communism, which collapsed utterly.
I agree, so far capitalism has had the most successful economy, and communism
what ever it meant, collapsed utterly. Pure public ownership was disaster,
but in my opinion, it may be strongly developed and after that it will be the
future of economy. In what I have proposed there is no any banned private
ownership, but I offer a system which will build a more effective and stable
so called public economy than a private one is, so that by the time, private
enterprises will not have other choice than to join public economy.
> Frankly, in terms of economic utility, I think private
> ownership and public ownership of capital are required. I do not see
> any stigma in selling one's efforts; this is certainly different from
> the emotional position you take when you describe this as selling
> one's self. And when it comes right down to it, one is certainly
> better off a slave to a corporation than a slave to a state. At least
> one has the hope of changing corporate affiliations without having to
> abandon one's homeland.
Selling one's efforts is very close to selling one's self. Much better would
be a competition amongst workers for working positions what I offered, and
it's development to a cooperation.
> What must be accomplished is a stable way to boost the
> negotiating power of individuals against powerful corporations. So
> far, this has not been accomplished. Unionism failed due to internal
> corruption, a condition which I think is unavoidable amongst elite
> groups in positions of power.
I agree, and because of it, the control over production mast be unprivileged.
> Within a predominately capitalist economy, a likely strategy
> to improve the bargaining power of an individual would emphasize
> effective communication and effective mobility. As technology
> progresses, communication is rapidly improving and mobility is
> becoming less and less important. Secondly, entry barriers to the job
> market must be reduced. In a technological society, this is best
> accomplished by providing a strong education so that young adults are
> not forced to return to school during their early careers to receive
> the basic training required to rise above subsistence wages.
This is a second level problem. Capitalism does not have any answer to the
problem of unemployment, economic crises, distribution of incomes, strikes,
alienation, crime, self and out destruction of people, etc. These are the
problems which need to be solved and this is what I've wrote about.
> Is a route to a humanistic economy available through
> communism? The question is almost moot. The last large communist
> economy left on Earth is that of the Chinese. They may move their
> country to a balanced economy; it is hard to tell if that is even
> their intent. But one must remember that China is a very special
> situation. That area of the world would probably have looked much
> like Europe, except that its first emperor chose genocide as a means
> for encouraging unification. In fact, he attempted to kill every
> person in that part of the world who did not speak his language and
> very nearly succeeded.
> I do not believe you will find many humanists who would
> advocate a repeat of his experiment.
So far communism has represented a dictatorship based on humanistic ideas
such as a free education, health care, social security, full employment, etc.
Communism has never had a chance do develop a real democracy because it
hadn't knew how to create a efficient system for bearing responsibility, and
of course, leaders like unlimited power. I have tried to solve a problem of
any kind of social responsibility with individual's public stocks and mutual
evaluations amongst people. In that system, leaders will be truly the most
responsible persons, which means they will get benefits only if they create
benefits to the people.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stinky
> stink...@bigfoot.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aleksandar
David Buchner
In article <01bbfce7$29799760$LocalHost@Aleksandar>, "Aleksandar Sarovic"
<aleks...@front.net> wrote:
> I agree, so far capitalism has had the most successful economy, and communism
> what ever it meant, collapsed utterly. Pure public ownership was disaster,
(snip snip snip snip)
> This is a second level problem. Capitalism does not have any answer to the
> problem of unemployment, economic crises, distribution of incomes, strikes,
> alienation, crime, self and out destruction of people, etc. These are the
> problems which need to be solved and this is what I've wrote about.
Well, then -- how are you defining "successful"?
Seems to me that we have to start backing away from the criteria for
success that governments are using to show how well they are doing.
Criteria like "growth" or "endurance" or whatever. I guess it depends on
the *goals* of the economy, or our goals we evaluate it by. From my point
of view, any economy which leaves widespread problems like these in its
wake (especially the "alienation, crime, self-destruction"-type problems)
looks like a failure.
--
David Buchner
Osage Minnesota, North America da...@parkrapids.polaristel.net
Aleksandar Sarovic
David Buchner <da...@parkrapids.polaristel.net> wrote in article
<david-08019...@sebeka-9.dialup.polaristel.net>...
> In article <01bbfce7$29799760$LocalHost@Aleksandar>, "Aleksandar Sarovic"
> <aleks...@front.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree, so far capitalism has had the most successful economy, and
communism
> > what ever it meant, collapsed utterly. Pure public ownership was disaster,
> (snip snip snip snip)
> > This is a second level problem. Capitalism does not have any answer to the
> > problem of unemployment, economic crises, distribution of incomes, strikes,
> > alienation, crime, self and out destruction of people, etc. These are the
> > problems which need to be solved and this is what I've written about.
>
> Well, then -- how are you defining "successful"?
>
> Seems to me that we have to start backing away from the criteria for
> success that governments are using to show how well they are doing.
> Criteria like "growth" or "endurance" or whatever. I guess it depends on
> the *goals* of the economy, or our goals we evaluate it by.
I agree about the capitalistic system, however economy has its own measure for
efficiency.
> From my point
> of view, any economy which leaves widespread problems like these in its
> wake (especially the "alienation, crime, self-destruction"-type problems)
> looks like a failure.
I agree and because of it, we should change the system, but how? I've described
in my posts the new idea how we could solve these problems but responses so far
have been low. The people very hard accept new ideas, and of course, they would
like to change a system under the only one condition: not to lose anything.
This condition makes any change almost impossible until the problems explode.
> --
> David Buchner
> Osage Minnesota, North America da...@parkrapids.polaristel.net
>
Aleksandar
Darrell R. Hougen
In article <32ce0a80...@news.halcyon.com>, jpal...@halcyon.com
(Jennifer Palonus) wrote:
...
% 8) Religioius humanism considers the complete realization of human
% personality to be at the end of man's life and seeks its development and
% fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the
% humanist's social passion.
%
% 9) In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the
% humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of
% personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
...
% 14) The humanists are firmly convinced that existing aquisitive and
% profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a
% radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A
% socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end
% that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The
% goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people
% voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists
% demand a shared life in a shared world.
...
% Too bad about point #14. After all, it contradicts #3, & has been proven
% to contradict #15.
%
% But except for that, it's quite good, and quite compatible with
% Objectivism. Or to put it another way, Objectivism is the only
% real-world application of Religious Humanism that can work in the long
% run, since it's the only one that's self-consistent & rigorously
% rational.
I would also look at points 8 and 9 which seem to indicate the value of
"social" (which I take to mean altruistic) motivation. Points 8 and 9
appear to support the idea stated in point 14 that people should volunteer
to do things for others with no expectation of reward.
Point 8 also seems to contradict itself and objectivism by stating that the
complete realization of a personality comes only at the end of that person's
life while also calling for fulfillment in the here and now. Indeed, point
8 also appears to promote a kind of hedonism.
Nowhere does the humanist manifesto state that a person's standard of value
should be his or her *own* life. It only talks about the value of life in
general.
Darrell R. Hougen
(I speak for myself)
Aleksandar Sarovic
norma...@aol.com wrote in article
<19970109110...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> humanism does not depend on public ownership. it is important to recgnize
> that the fuit of human effort should belong to its producer. this is
> simple equity and logic.
I agree, but the producers should not be privileged. Everyone should have a
fulfilled right to work and to compete for every working place what is possible
only at public ownership of the means of production. This means humanism does
depend on public ownership. These competitors should take a benefits with state
stocks and earnings for the improved production, and of course, should bear the
same kind of responsibility if fail. This kind of public ownership of the state
company would bring greater productivity and stability in the process of
production than capitalism can.
> it also has the advantage of providing the
> incentives which are the engine of progress.
I agree, everyone should be paid according his contribution with the past and
present work to building everything what we have in our society. The earnings
from the past work would substitute capitalists' incomes based on ownership
(interest, rent, etc.).
> those who believe that
> altruism can replace the incentive for personal gain ignore natural
> tendencies which are part of the desire to survive..
Humanism based on altruism is an utopia, humanism should be based on equal
rights for every human being and than it could reach altruism.
> this refers only to the fruit of man's own effort. it does not include
> natural resources, which should be the birthright of all. it should be
> the business of government to preserve and protect this birthright.
I agree
> normane814
>
Aleksandar
LQuest
hou...@ssv.den.mmc.com (Darrell R. Hougen) wrote:
[snips]
>I would also look at points 8 and 9 which seem to indicate the value of
>"social" (which I take to mean altruistic) motivation. Points 8 and 9
>appear to support the idea stated in point 14 that people should volunteer
>to do things for others with no expectation of reward.
>Point 8 also seems to contradict itself and objectivism by stating that the
>complete realization of a personality comes only at the end of that person's
>life while also calling for fulfillment in the here and now. Indeed, point
>8 also appears to promote a kind of hedonism.
>Nowhere does the humanist manifesto state that a person's standard of value
>should be his or her *own* life. It only talks about the value of life in
>general.
>Darrell R. Hougen
Excellent point Darrell. Thanks for posting it! I've always been leary of
"Humanism" because the only evidence I seen of it is in the lives of liberal
busy bodies who love to do good using other people's property taken by force.
Why can't the essence of human rights be summed up in one simple declaration:
No person or group may EVER INITIATE force against another person or group.
Use of force is ONLY justified as a RESPONSE to those who break the rule
against it.
Try to imagine what the world would be like if just those who live in
"Democracies" would accept the elegant justice of this premise. Personally, I
think it would be heaven on earth.
--Mike
The whole meaning of Socialism is a systematic glorification of
force.... No literary phrases about social organisms are potent
enough to evaporate the individual, who is the prime, indespensable,
irreducible element. -- Auberon Herbert
Bruce Carter
Aleksandar Sarovic
It would not be possible, though, for the people to make all of the
decisions on governing their society. Most decisions would have to be made
by individuals. Such a shortfall in the degree of democracy practiced would
have to be combated by means of an efficient system for the people to
exercise control over the people: a system of democratic anarchy. This can
be accomplished by giving each one the right to judge the doings of every
member of society. A favorable evaluation overall should directly slightly
negative vote overall should result in directly penalization by slightly
free to arrive at their assessment of people unrestricted by any written
rules, such democracy amounts to a form of anarchy. Democratic anarchy will
make every member of society bring about the greatest possible benefits and
will be what makes society productive.
The preceding is only one of the main points of the new conception about
the development of society I have explained in more detail in my
unpublished book: "Humanism - A Philosophical, Ethical, Political and
Economic Study of the Development of Society".
Aleksandar Sarovic
PS Feel free to ask, criticize or contribute to the topic.