|
Home
|
|
|
|
Important historical developments have taken place in the course of attempts to solve the problem of work and wages, the relationship between employers and employees, owners and producers. These developments have led to concessions which determined fixed working hours, overtime pay, leaves of absence, minimum wages, profit-sharing, workers’ participation in management, the prohibition of arbitrary dismissals, social security, the right to strike, and other provisions contained in almost all contemporary labour laws. Of no less significance are developments with respect to the issue of property, the establishment of systems of government which set limits to income, and prohibit private property, transferring ownership to the state.
Despite all these important developments in the history of economics, the deep-rooted economic problem still fundamentally exists despite all the refinements, improvements and developments, which have made it less severe than in past centuries and has given workers many benefits. Attempts to address the issue of property have failed to resolve the problems of producers. They are still wage earners, although the right to private property, incontestable in regimes of the extreme right, was amended and changed in centrist regimes and regimes of the extreme left. Attempts to improve wages did not fare any better, although the end result of such attempts granted workers concessions which are guaranteed by legislation and safeguarded by trade unions. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution the miserable conditions of the producers changed and workers, technicians and administrators acquired rights which at one time seemed unattainable. In reality, however, the economic problem still exists. Attempts made to settle the issue of wages failed to resolve the problem; they were trumped up and reformist attempts that were more like donations to charity rather than recognition of the rights of workers. Why are workers rewarded with wages? Because they produce a product for the benefit of others who hire them to produce that product. In this case, workers do not consume what they produce but surrender it in return for a wage. Hence the sound rule is that “he who produces consumes.” Wage earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them. They are temporary slaves, and their servitude lasts as long as the duration of their work for which they receive wages from their employers (whether these are individuals or the state). The workers’ relationship to the owner or the productive establishment and to their own interests is similar in all cases throughout the world, despite the differences between the laws governing property. Even state-owned economic enterprises give workers wages and other special benefits which are more like charitable offerings donated by rich owners of private economic establishments to their employees. To claim that income from a state-controlled establishment is re-injected into society, and thus benefits the workers, as opposed to income from a privately-owned establishment which benefits solely the owner, is a true statement only if the general welfare of the society and private well-being of the workers is taken inti account. Also we would have to assume that the political authority which controls ownership is the People’s Congresses and the People’s Committees and not the authority of one social class, political party, coalition of parties, tribe, sect, family or individual, or any form of representative authority. As far as their own interests are concerned, the workers’ immediate benefits in the form of wages, percentage of profits or social benefits, are the same as those received by workers in privately-owned corporations. That is to say, workers employed in state-controlled establishments and in private enterprises are all wage earners regardless of the status of the employer. Thus, the developments which led to the transfer of property from private individuals to the state have not resolved the problem of the producer’s right to benefit directly from what he produces, not indirectly through society, or in return for a wage. This failure is evident in the fact that producers are still wage earners in spite of the change in the legal status of property. The ultimate solution to this problem is to abolish the wage system, emancipate the human being enslaved by it, and revert to the natural laws which defined relationships between workers and employers before the emergence of social classes and the development of various forms of government and man-made laws. These natural rules are the only measures that ought to govern human relations. These natural rules have produced a natural form of socialism based on equality among the components of economic production, and have maintained public consumption almost equal to natural production among individuals. The exploitation of man by man and the possession by some individuals of wealth exceeding personal needs, are manifestations of departure from the natural rule. This signals the beginning of corruption and distortion in the life of the human community, and is the beginning of the emergence of the exploitative society. If we analyze the factors of economic production from ancient times up to the present, we shall find that they essentially consist of certain basic production components: the raw materials, the means of production and the producer. The natural rule of equality stipulates that each of these components is apportioned a share of this production, because the withdrawal of one negates production, and each is assigned an essential role in the process of production without which production is brought to a halt. Since each element is necessary and essential then all elements are equally important to the process of production, and should therefore have equal rights in the produced product. The pre-dominance of one over the other would be in conflict with the natural rule of equality and an infringement on the right of the other. Hence, for each element has a share regardless of its nature. If a process of production is made with only two elements, then each should have half the produced product; if it is made with three elements, then each should have one-third of the produced product, and so on and so forth. If we employ this natural rule in order to examine what actually happened in the past and what happens now we shall find the following. At the stage of manual production, the production process comprised the raw materials and the producer. Later, new means of production were introduced to the equation and used by man in the production process. Good examples of this are animals used as a unit of force. Gradually the machine replaced animals, and raw materials developed from simple and cheap materials to more complex and expensive materials. Likewise, man developed too: from an ordinary worker to skilled workers and engineers; their former large numbers dwindling to a few specialized technicians. Even though the change in the components was both quantitative and qualitative, their essential role in the production process has remained basically unaltered. For example iron one, as a component of production past and present, was manufactured primitively by blacksmiths into knives, axes and spears. Today, engineers manufacture iron ore in foundries, to produce various kinds of machinery, engines and motors. Beasts, like horses, mules and camels, were replaced as elements of production by large factories and huge machines. Production, based on primitive tools is now founded on sophisticated technical instruments. Yet, the basic natural elements of production are essentially still the same despite the tremendous development. This essential endurance confirms the natural rule as the proper and inevitable formula for the final solution of the economic problem, in view of the failure of all previous historical attempts which persistently ignored the application of natural rules. All previous historical theories tackled the economic problem solely from the angle of ownership of one of the components of production, and solely from the angle of wages in return for production. This did not solve the real problem: that is the problem of production itself. Thus, the most prominent feature of the present economic systems in the world is a system of wages that deprives the workers of any right to the products they produce, regardless of whether this production is made for the benefit of society or for the benefit of a private enterprise. An industrial production plant comprises production material, machinery and workers, and production results from the utilization of the plant’s machinery by the workers, to manufacture goods from raw materials. The manufactured goods, ready for use or consumption, are thus products of a production process that could not have taken place without the raw materials, the plant or the workers. If the raw materials were excluded, the factory would have nothing to produce; if the factory were excluded, nothing could be made of the raw materials; and likewise if the workers were excluded, the factory would not operate. These three elements are equally essential for the production process and production is not possible without all three. Any one element of the three cannot possibly activate the production process on its own; neither can any two elements produce without the third. The natural rule in this case necessitates that each component receives an equal share of the benefits of production. In other words, the production of this factory is to be divided into three equal shares for each element of production, because what is important is not only the factory in itself but those who consume its product as well. The same is applicable to agricultural production which involves only two components, man and the land, with the exclusion of the third component, the machine, and which is exactly like handicraft production, in this case production is divided into two shares only. If a piece of machinery is used in the process then production is divided, into three shares: the land, the agricultural worker and the machine. Thus, a socialist system is established whereby all processes of production are governed by such a natural rule. The producers are the workers. They are called thus because the term “workers” or “labourers” is no longer realistic. Workers, as traditionally defined, are changing quantitatively and qualitatively, and the working class is constantly declining proportionately to the development of science and technology. Tasks that previously required a certain number of workers are now undertaken by a machine whose operation requires a less number of workers. This is the quantitative change of the labour force. As for the qualitative change, this is evident in the fact that the machine requires technical skill instead of muscular power. This is the change that the labour force has undergone. The labour force has become a component of the production process. As a result of progress, the working force is no longer a multitude of illiterate labourers but has transformed into a limited number of technicians, engineers and scientists. Consequently, trade unions will disappear and be replaced by syndicates of engineers and technicians. Scientific progress is an irreversible gain for humanity. Thanks to this, illiteracy will be eliminated by this progress and the ordinary unskilled labour force will become a temporary phenomenon, bound to disappear gradually. However, even in this new environment human beings will always remain the basic component in the production process. Need The freedom of a human being is always compromised if one’s needs are controlled by another, for need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another. Furthermore it is the cause of exploitation. Need is a real problem, and conflict is provoked as a result of one man’s needs being controlled by another. Housing Private dwelling is essential for the individual and the family as well, and therefore should not be the property of another. A person living in another person’s house in return for rent, or even without rent, is not a free person. Attempts made by countries to solve the housing problem have not provided a definitive solution. This is because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution: that a person must own his own home. Instead those endeavours dealt with the issue of rent either by reducing, increasing its value or standardizing the system by legislation, regardless of whether the landlord is the state or a private individual. In a socialist society, it is inadmissible for anyone to control the needs of a human being, not even society itself. No one has the right to build a house in addition to his own dwelling, or the dwellings of his heirs, for the purpose of leasing it to others, because a house represents a human need. To build an additional house with the intention of leasing it is to engage in manipulating the need of another human being, and freedom lies at the very heart of human needs. Income Income is an imperative need for every human being, and as such, it is inadmissible that any member of society should obtain his or her income either as a wage from any source or as a charitable donation from any individual or party. In a socialist society there are no wage earners but only partners. One’s income is a private matter to be dispensed personally, and within the limits of fulfilling personal needs. This income may be in the form of a share in a product in whose production a person constitutes an essential element. It should not be in the form of a wage received in return for production for the benefit of any other party whatsoever. Vehicles A vehicle is also an essential need for the individual and the family, and as such, a person’s means of transportation should not be the property of another. In a socialist society no person or party may own private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents control over the needs of others. Land Land is no one’s private property. Rather, everyone has the right to exploit it for farming or grazing, for the duration of his or her life and the lives of their heirs, but within the limits of fulfilling their needs. If it were permissible for land to be privately owned, only those living would have a share of it. This is because while land is permanent, those who benefit from the land undergo, with the passage of time, changes in their jobs, their abilities and their lives too. The objective of the new socialist society is to establish a happy society deriving its happiness from being free. Such a society is realized only through the fulfillment of the individual’s spiritual and material needs, and this can be achieved by liberating these needs from the control and manipulation of others. Satisfaction of needs should be realized without exploitation or enslavement of others, as this would be contrary to the objectives of the new socialist society. Thus in this new society, a human being should either work for himself to secure his material needs, or work for a collectively-owned establishment in which he is a partner sharing in its production, or join the public service to serve society, which in return would guarantee to provide for his material needs. Economic activity in the new socialist society is a productive one for the satisfaction of material needs. It is not an unproductive activity nor one that seeks profit for the purpose of accumulating savings beyond what is needed to meet those material needs. Such an objective would be inconceivable under the new socialist rules. The legitimate objective of an individual’s economic activity is solely the fulfillment of personal material needs, since the wealth of our world, as well as that of each individual society, is finite at every stage. No one individual has the right to undertake an economic activity, whereby wealth, exceeding one’s needs, can be amassed. The excess would represent the right of others. The individual has the right to save from his needs, from his own production only, but not from the efforts of others, or at the expense of their needs. If it were permissible to pursue economic activities for the purpose of making profit in excess of personal needs, some individuals would obtain more than they need and would then deprive others from obtaining their own needs. Savings in excess of personal needs represent another person’s share of the wealth of society. To allow private production to secure savings in excess of satisfying personal needs, and to permit the employment of others to secure personal needs or to obtain in excess of personal needs, is the very essence of exploitation. As previously noted, labour in return for wages is virtually the same as enslaving a human being: it is unmotivated labour because the producer is a hired hand and not a partner. He who labours for himself is undoubtedly sincere in his productive work because dependence on one’s own toil to fulfill one’s own natural needs, prompts sincerity. Similarly, he who works in a socialist establishment is undoubtedly sincere in his productive work, because he is entitled to a share in production which secures his personal needs and this also prompts his sincerity. But he who labours for a wage lacks the motivation to work. The system of wage earners cannot resolve the problem of increased and improved productivity in goods or services, and productivity continuously deteriorates because it is performed by unmotivated wage earners. The following are examples of paid labour for the benefit of society; paid labour for the benefit of a private employer; and labour without pay. First example
Second example A labourer produces 10 apples for the benefit of another individual, and in return receives a wage that represents less than the price of one apple. Third example A labourer produces 10 apples for himself. Conclusion First example
Second example The labourer does not work to produce in the first place. He works to receive a wage, but since he receives less than what suffices his needs, this worker would either seek another employer to sell his labour to for a better price, or would be constrained to hold on to his job to survive. Third example This labourer is the only one who produces eagerly and voluntarily. In a socialist society it is inadmissible for an individual to receive more than what suffices his needs, in return for his productivity, nor is it admissible for an individual to fulfill personal needs at the expense of others, or through the labours of others. Socialist establishments operate in order to meet the needs of society, and this third example reflects the proper condition for economic production. However, in all cases, even under deplorable conditions, production is an activity essential for survival. This is evident in capitalist societies where production expands and accumulates in the hands of the few who do not labour but exploit the labour of workers who are still forced to toil and produce for a living. However, The Green Book not only offers a solution to the problem of material production, but shows the way towards a comprehensive solution of the problems facing human societies, so that individuals may ultimately be spiritually and materially liberated, so that their happiness may be realized. Other examples: if we assume that the wealth of society amounts to 10 units and the population count is 10, then the share of one individual in this wealth is one-tenth of the total, one unit per person. If a number of these individuals were to own more than their share of one unit, then certain other individuals in this society would own nothing, because their shares of the society’s wealth had been usurped by others. This disparity creates the presence of the rich and the poor in an exploitative society. Let us suppose that five individuals in this society own two units each, then there are five others who own nothing, and this means that half are deprived of their share of the wealth, because the additional units owned by each one of the former five individuals represent the shares of the other five. When an individual in this society requires only one unit of society’s wealth to fulfil his needs, then the individual who owns more than one unit of this wealth, is actually the usurper of the right of other individuals in society. By having a share in excess of his need, this individual is usurping this excess to hoard more than his share at the expense of other people’s needs. This explains the existence of those who hoard and do not spend, i.e. those who save in excess of what they require to fulfill their needs, and also the existence of those who are deprived, i.e. those who are demanding their right in the society’s wealth and have nothing to live by. It is overt theft and plunder, but is considered legitimate by the unjust and exploitative rules that govern such a society. What is left over after fulfilling the needs of all individuals becomes the rightful property of all members of society. As for individuals, they can save as much as they choose, provided that they do so by cutting down on their needs since amassing in excess of personal needs is a violation of the sanctity of public wealth. Even the industrious and skilful have no right to usurp the share of others as a result of this advantage. They can use these talents to satisfy their own needs and save from those needs. This does not mean that the aged and the mentally or physically disabled are not entitled to the same share of society’s wealth as other healthy individuals. The wealth of a society may be likened to a provisions establishment or a supply warehouse, which supplies a number of people on a daily basis with a specific quantity of provisions to meet their daily needs. An individual is free to save as much as he chooses from the quantity he receives, and would thus be profiting from his abilities and proficiency. But he who takes advantage of such talent to obtain for himself more than his share, is undoubtedly a thief. Whoever uses his proficiency to gain more than is required to fulfil his personal needs actually violates the public right, i.e. society’s wealth. In the new socialist society, inequality of wealth between individuals is unacceptable, except for public servants who are assigned a specific share of the society’s wealth commensurate with their productivity and the services they perform. The difference between the shares of these public servants is determined by the extent of services performed and level of productivity. Thus, human experiences have finally yielded a new experiment as a final culmination man’s struggle for complete freedom and happiness, fulfilling his needs, breaking free from the shackles of exploitation, bringing an end to tyranny and finding the way to a just distribution of society’s wealth: whereby an individual work to fulfill his own needs, and refrains from exploiting others, or compromising their needs. This new experience is based on the theory of the fulfillment of needs for the emancipation of man. Thus the new socialist society is no more than a dialectical consequence of the unjust relations prevailing in the world. This new socialist society embodies the natural solution which stipulates private ownership to fulfill personal needs without exploitation, and collective property whereby the producers are partners in the production, replacing private enterprise which is based on the production of others without recognizing their right for a just share of the product. He who owns the house in which you live, the vehicle in which you ride, or the income on which you live, either completely or partially controls your freedom. Freedom is undividable. Freedom is an essential pre-requisite for achieving happiness, and to be free, a human being must personally own what he needs, since he who owns another person’s necessities controls, exploits and may even enslave this person despite any legislation to the contrary. The essential material needs of people are, first and foremost, clothing, food, home and personal means of transportation. These are sacrosanct and must be privately owned. They are not to be leased from others. To obtain these essential personal needs in return for payment is to enable the real owner to intervene in another person’s private life and control his essential needs, even if this owner were society in general. As a result, man’s liberty is manipulated and man’s aspiration to happiness is aborted. The owner of your rented clothing may step in to divest you of your clothes leaving you stripped naked on the open road, the owner of your rented vehicle may also step in to reclaim his possession leaving you in the middle of the road, and the owner of the house may come over to demand his house and render you homeless without shelter. Man’s essential needs cannot be regulated by legal or administrative measures. Instead, such needs should constitute the foundations of society, in accordance with natural rules. The aim of a socialist society is the happiness of man. This happiness cannot be realized except in conditions of spiritual and material freedom. However, the realization of freedom depends upon the extent to which man personally owns his essential needs and the extent to which such ownership is safeguarded. The transformation of contemporary societies of wage earners into societies of partners is inevitable as a dialectical outcome of the contradictory economic theories prevailing in our world today, and as the inevitable dialectical result of the unresolved oppressive relations originating from the wage system. The intimidating power of trade unions in the capitalist world is potentially capable of transforming capitalist wage-earning societies of partners. The potential for revolution to establish socialism exists. It begins with an uprising of the producers to seize their share of the production they produce. The objectives of labour strikes shall change from demands for wage increases into demands for shares in production, and this shall be achieved sooner or later with the guidance of The Green Book. The final step in the process will be accomplished when the new socialist society reaches the stage whereby money and profit disappear as society becomes fully productive and the level of production reaches the point whereby it meets the material needs of all the members of the society. Profit automatically disappears at this final stage and the need for money as a medium of exchange no longer exists. The recognition of profit is an admission of exploitation, since the mere fact of recognition implies that the pursuit of profit knows no limits. Attempts to limit profit-making are merely reformist not radical and do not prevent the exploitation of man. The ultimate solution is to abolish profit. But since profit is the motivating force of economic production, the abolition of profit as the final solution is not a matter of decision. It is a consequence of the development of a socialist production, and will be accomplished when this production fulfils the material needs of society and all its members. Work for the purpose of increasing profit will finally lead to the disappearance of profit. Domestic servants Domestic servants - whether wage earners or otherwise - represent a condition of servitude; they are actually the slaves of our modern times. And since the new socialist society is based on partnership and not on a wage system, the natural socialist rules do not apply to house servants. They offer services not production, and services do not entail material production divisible into shares, as natural socialist rules stipulate. This is why domestic servants cannot work except in return for a wage or even without a wage in unfortunate circumstances. But being of a level lower than the level of wage labourers, house servants are more deserving of emancipation from the fetters of servitude in the society of wage earners, the society of slaves. Domestic servants are a social phenomenon second only to the phenomenon of slavery. The Third Universal Theory is a harbinger of the final deliverance of the masses from all the constraints of justice, tyranny, exploitation, and political and economic subordination. It also heralds the advent of all people’s society in which all individuals are free and equal in authority, wealth, and arms. Freedom may finally triumph. The Green Book shows the way to the deliverance of the masses of wage earners and domestic servants, and to the realization of man’s freedom. That is why there is no way other than the way of struggle to free domestic servants from their condition of servitude and remove them from the confines of houses, to transform them into partners in domains where material production is divisible into shares. Houses should be serviced by their occupants, and house chores should not be done by servants in return for wages or without wages, but by employed persons subject to promotion during their employment; they should enjoy material and social benefits just like other public servants. |
|
Home
|