My Interview with "Dnevno," Zagreb. 12.12.2012 

Deconstruction of capitalism: 'I am the Messiah Aleksandar, my philosophy will eliminate evil from the world'.

Aleksandar Šarović is, many would say, eccentric. He describes himself as a messiah whose philosophy will completely eliminate the evil of this world and make it a beautiful place to live. On his website, for years he has been presenting his work which is the result of a desire to change the system in which we live. For ten years, he worked on the book 'Humanism,' in which he has presented his vision of the ideal society. This graduate architect, born in Zagreb in 1955 now lives in Canada. For the last ten years, he has mostly taken care of housework, children and - philosophizes, possible thanks to his well-paid wife. Why does he advocate for the abolition of prisons, who does he see as the ruler of the world, why would wars one day no longer exist? – read on. 

Mr. Šarović, you live in Canada, where many young Croats move in search for a better life now. Would they find it there? 

The living standard here is better than in Croatia, but it is not good enough. I think a high number of available jobs here are generally low paying and cannot provide a good life. 

You are the author of the book 'Humanism.' When the book came out, how did you get the idea to write it and how was it accepted by the audience? Is it available in print? 

When I graduated from architecture, I realized that the society in which I lived was not good and that my efforts in the field of architecture would be meaningless. Since I cannot change myself, I decided to change the world. It took me ten years to write the book 'Humanism.' It was finished in 1992. The book presents a good society. It is only available on my website since the year 2000. So far I have distributed about 6,000 free copies. Some individuals are very interested in my ideas, but they are not influential.

You defined your book 'a pure science that determines certain and bright future of mankind. " Aren’t you afraid of criticism that would call you pretentious?

I am the Messiah, messiah Aleksandar. I assert it because my philosophy will completely eliminate the evil of this world and permanently make it a beautiful place to live. This will be achieved by the literal enforcement of equal rights among the people. In approaching the development of a new social system, I took into account the main elements of the existing science, particularly political science and economics. Then I transformed them into forms that will allow further advancement of society. While doing it, I did not repeal any existing function.

I'm not afraid of criticism because I feel superior. Sociologists pretend I do not exist because there is entirely no use for sociology today. Why then does it exist? Solely to distinguish obedient people who accept without thinking the nonsense that authorities impose. Obedient people are unable to change anything, which is why every government likes them. The social sciences are now completely helpless and useless for defining a good society. 

The book proposes a radical change in the socio-economic system. Have you had any inconveniences because of it? 

I have not; I am wholly ignored by science, politics and the media. But one day when my philosophy starts moving masses, I might have problems.

You believe that the concept of 'past work points' could abolish prisons? Please explain the functioning of the judiciary and the concept of 'past work points.' 

A prison sentence has not changed since the first emergence of a state. It is cruel and unnecessary. I have proposed that a record is kept of how much each man contributes to improving or damaging society. All the good that a man commits will bring him the points of past work, and every evil which he commits will take away past work points from him. To achieve such a system it would be necessary to conduct a study of value categories, and the results of such a study will have to be accepted by the people in a referendum. Points of past work can be a secret known only to the man who owns them, but if a man commits great inconveniences, such as to cause crime, and if he falls into a negative value of the past work points, then these points will no longer be a secret. I suggest that people who fall into a negative value of past work points are forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the system, I proposed they would be very ashamed of such clothing so that it can be a more severe punishment than prison. Prisons will not be needed. People will be able to get rid of these clothes only through highly productive work and outstanding behaviour in society. 

You advocate for direct democracy. However, in a referendum, everyone would not have equal rights to vote, even though all would have the right to vote, regardless of age. Please explain it a bit. 

I suggest that people who contribute more to the creation of a good society, those who possess more past work points, have proportionately greater voting power. Such a measure would be very stimulating for the development of society. Everything else is a matter of agreement. If the nation agrees that all people have equally contributed to the common good, then everyone will have the same starting amount of past work points and thus will also have an equal right to vote. If people see that the points of past work are motivating for the development of the society, then they will accept the differences in voting rights to the extent that they find it is most convenient for society as a whole. I do not see why age would be an obstacle to the right to vote. 

In the book, you have expressed the hope that some political party would adopt the program defined in it. You think that a win from such a party would be the beginning of a significant reform of the system and society. Have you been in touch with the politicians and offered them your program? 

I contacted a multitude of prominent politicians in the world and in Croatia, as well as political parties, but did not receive answers from them. It is no wonder because politicians, no matter how much they welcome the public good, they primarily represent their own right. They do not like my system because it abolishes privileges. Politicians will continue to make decisions on behalf of society, but for the first time in history, they would bear a responsibility to each individual for what they do. 

Each person will receive an equal right to give a monetary reward or punishment to any individual in society. This amount will be minimal, let’s say one dollar or one point of past work. What would we end up with? All people will try to minimize inconveniences and maximize conveniences to other people. A politician who displeases the people can be punished by a large number of individuals with a large sum of dollars altogether or by a large amount of past work points. Incompetent politicians and liars will quickly abandon the policy, only the fittest and bravest will dare to lead the people. So it is no wonder why the privileged politicians do not like me. I think the changes that I have proposed will have to be accepted directly by the people because authorities do not like my social system. 

Can most people be motivated by the common good, rather than their private ones? 

The social system that I have proposed will no longer have privileges; it means that nobody will be able to get a private good if they do not contribute to a common good. 

You say 'my book defines a system that will eventually replace capitalism and form a good society. "Is the creation of a 'good society' possible with people as they are? Or is a man ready for the introduction of a 'good society"? 

A good society is the result of a good social system. Once a good social order is established society will soon become good because it will consist of good individuals. 

Are you afraid that the world powers would be preventing the evolution of capitalism towards a better system, whatever it is for many years, to keep the power they currently possess, which is based on capital? 

Capitalism will continue to be present because it is at this point the best possible socio-economic system. But it can be quite easily fixed through reform. In the first place, it is necessary to shorten work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. Unemployment exists just for capitalists to be able to pay cheap labour. When unemployment is abolished, workers will earn more. It will, on the other hand, reduce the profits of the owners of the companies. Even such a simple reform would not pass quickly, but capitalism cannot win. 

The economy of the new society, as you see it, would be a sort of hybrid of planned and market economies. Can you briefly explain how it would work? 

An open labour market is essentially an open competition of workers for every public position at any time. A worker who anticipates and offers the highest productivity for the desired work post will get the job. If productivity is limited, the job will go to the worker who demands the lowest price for current work and therefore a lower income. The new economy will necessarily require an efficient system of establishing workers' responsibilities for the realization of proposed productivities, and this will be achieved by the points of past work. 

What do we get with such a division of work? The best worker in any workplace ensures maximum productivity for the company, and therefore it will bring the most significant benefits to society. Furthermore, the open labour market would eliminate workers' privileges, and with it corruption, the foundation of immorality in today's society. The labour market will balance the interest of all jobs. And perhaps most importantly, the labour market will give people the freedom to choose jobs that they like more, and so the work will become far more enjoyable than it is today. Work will become a value in itself. 

The social system that I have proposed accepts a planned economy because it provides the most stable production. However, the economy will not have anything in common with the Soviet economic model, but will instead be based on customer orders. The largest consumer is the state that collects taxes and decides on the use of tax money. In the new social system, the tax amount and its purpose will determine each worker. Each worker will participate in deciding how much tax money should be set aside from their incomes on their own accord. The mean value of the testimony of all workers will determine the percentage of income that all people will set aside for taxes. After that, each worker will decide how much of his taxes he wants to spend on education, health, public safety, infrastructure and all other common use expenses. 

Given that the new social system offers stable and good relations between nations, people will not give money for armies, and the armies will cease to exist. In a developed democracy, war will no longer be possible. Fiscal policy will for the first time follow the interests of the people and the people will be much more satisfied with it than they are today. 

You believe that people would voluntarily separate the tax money from their incomes? 

Minimum tax cannot be voluntary because the state cannot function without taxes. I think that people will voluntarily increase the taxes to establish a more stable economy and rational consumption. The new social system will teach people that there are far higher values than money. I am convinced that one distant day when true values are established in society, people will freely allocate all the money from their gross incomes for tax purposes. Then, all goods and services will be freely available to all people. 

Who do you see as some kind of the ruler of the world? 

Jacob Rothschild governs the Western world secretly by the wealth his family has amassed for centuries. He rules secretly by using a large hierarchical structure of agents who are exposed instead of him. So no one can blame him for the problems that stem from his rule. 

Message for the end? 

My website presents the bright future of mankind in detail. Please visit it. 

When asked if there were something out of a CV he would like to distinguish, Šarović said: As a third-year student of architecture I won the Yugoslav competition for arranging the Republic Square in Zagreb (Jelačić Square), but did not get the realization of the project. 

Zoran Stupar

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

 
Link to the article

 Back to Top