THE NAPUK PARTY -- PROGRAM
By Ivancho Jotata, known also as Ochnavi Atatoj, Ivan Bugarow, Jotabash Giaurgi, Nostradamus Buladamus, and other cloning names
[ Remark: There are three papers about NAPUK party that go hand in hand, the Program, that stays in the middle between the other two, which are the Manifesto, and the Codex; they all are related, but are different, stressing on different sides of the activity of this unique party. ]
: This is the middle and more detailed of the trinity of papers about the NAPUK party. Here are explained in more details the economic moments of its activity, more precisely how this livelong allowances must be paid, also the maintaining of social prices for the social products, and other moments in the future. It is better to read first the Manifesto in order to know about what it goes.
The history of all societies is a history of redistribution of financial resources
, so that to be ensured the best possible for the moment method of exploitation of the masses! One may accept the exploitation or deny it, yet it exists, and the incessant changing of the hands that keep the money, including those of the state, is obvious at least in the taxation that exists in every state from the times of primitive societies and till the current days. There can't exist a state if something is not taken from everybody from whom it can be taken, but it is a bad state (what ultimately means that it can't exist, too), if it does not also give something to those in need, and if it was given to the proper persons then the money is not lost, but can later bring some dividends for the state and for all the population. These are some preliminary economic moments, that will be useful for grasping of the idea of this new party.
Because, as said in the Manifesto, this is a second to none party with name NAPUK, meaning in Bulgarian in-spite-of, against (all other parties around the world). The idea of it has arisen in Bulgaria because this is the weakest piece of the chain, the poorest country in EU, and in addition to this the most unsocial of all other countries, land of unbelievers and egoists, though with very original gene and unique characteristics in many aspects; still, it is European country (even if on the very border of it, in the Balkan peninsula). What means that if some of the proposed by this party measures will work in Bulgaria, then they will work everywhere
, because in almost all other countries the economic and moral conditions will be better than by us. And the purpose of this party is to mobilize the people for bettering of the current capitalism, for some socializing of it, for providing of smoother transition to the next social order -- which will not
be of higher productivity rates and abundance, but of better exploitation
, more suitable for the people in the era of post-industrial society, with its synthetic products and robotized industry, but with weaker compulsion of the money as main stimulus for production; in other words, in conditions where is searched not for people to do some necessary work, but for necessary activity of work for the people to satisfy their need for self-expression (in addition to the expected income for the state).
The point is, you see, that everybody wants
to be exploited, but to be well satisfied with this, both by the payment for his (or her, I will not repeat this) work, and by the pleasure of doing something good for the people. Even many of the animals want to be made to do something that will please the master, so that I will not indulge in more motivations of this necessity for the people, after satisfying in some measure the other lower placed main desires, namely for: food, shelter, and sex or procreation. Yet they have to be all satisfied up to some degree with food and shelter, also with healthcare, with ability to learn what they deem necessary for them to learn, and to feel more or less secured in their life. What means also that they have to have reached some higher level of satisfying of their needs and to have begin to reject the money
, to scorn them! OK, but the case now is not such, even in the well developed countries people hold a big amount of unnecessary investments, what is proved by the big amount of money in the banks, and by the funny, even negative interest rates; also the incessantly increasing of the thrown to the garbage food and products in quite good condition means that people have not real needs to produce more.
And in the same time there are not less than 10 % of the population, and in some countries up to about 30 %, who live below the social minimum for the moment, whose needs can perfectly well (I am convinced in this) be satisfied and be in condition to make their contribution to the society, or at least to live happier, but they are somehow separated from the society as non-necessary for the moment persons. This is a rotten circle, and instead of solving it somehow, we invent only new unnecessary pleasures for the over-satiated majority of people. Hence, by these current circumstances, we have to make all efforts to socialize better the society, to equalize bigger number of people in their standard of life, to give to all some basic allowance at least after passport age, to provide goods and services of whatever kind (be it a loaf of bread, or bus ticket, or education taxes, or fee for pulling out a tooth, or something else) on prices corresponding with his resources, and to debase as far as possible the power of money (as the chief oppressor under the capitalism -- because the oppressor is not the capitalist, it is the money that is guilty). This will be building of socialism in the conditions of capitalism, what is the right way
to do this, at least because the socialism is simply a level or kind of capitalism, the form of exploitation is not changed, we all are hired workers (with the exception of some super rich minority of less than 1 %). This is necessary to be done for three reasons (at least), because we can do
this, because this is our moral obligation
, and because this will better the exploitation
, although I think also, because this will enliven the capitalism (with the inclusion of the non-needed persons in the society), and will make more smooth the transition to the next social order, whenever this happens.
1. Lifelong Allowances
As explained in the Manifesto, the ultimate goal here is to reach minimal lifelong allowance or pension for every born citizen of amount of about 0.4 MMS (Minimal Monthly Salary), even to 1/2 of it, but we have to begin with 1/3 MMS, or even with 1/4 MMS in very poor countries. This quotient is motivated because usually the average salary makes from 2 to 2.5 (but 3 is already wrong) times MMS, hence we can make the same step in the reversed order, and declare that about 1/3 MMS is the allowed (or motivated or "scientifically calculated") minimum, which every person has to have working nowhere
, in order to lead more or less decent life in the moment. You see, I don't deny the other ways for calculating of this minimal income or social minimum, but this is one simple and obvious measurement, which turns (I suppose) to be practically the same as the officially calculated one (taking into account also the differences in the estimations from different sources, which sometimes reach about 2 times). In any case, this quotient is good for every country and for all times, because the MMS is used now in all countries, and all prices are automatically adjusted in this way (and exactly because
this is one very simple and universal "formula" -- if a coefficient can be called formula -- it is applied nowhere
in the world, at least up to my knowledge).
But this paying by the state -- because there will not come the Martians to give us the money -- does not mean that there will be necessary so much money now at once. No, because the bigger part of the payments are already paid to many of us, i.e. the pensions, the scholarships, the sick-leaves, etc., and for further lessening of the sum I count initially only people after passport age, and diminish the quotient to 1/4, when necessary. Yet not
less than this, because, as they say, enough is enough! And the state, or the Government, will be represented here by some bank, which I called here AB (for Allowance Bank), under some used PIN code for every citizen. And all payments to each of us have to be made through this AB, both from the employer, and from the existing social funds, and firstly the state pays in the beginning of the month this allowance and later deducts it from the received payments, if and up to what measure this is possible. Yet the consequence is not important (in one cyclical process the beginning is a matter of taste), so that the state can pay this MA (Minimal Allowance) in the end of the month, or rather in the next month. But this will be some securing "cap" above all instances that pay the money and will require it from them, and will care
about everybody, because something is given without
proper reasons, and will try to enrol each of these persons in some lists for receiving of motivated allowances!
Surely, the necessity will make the state to find better ways, to plan new social programs, to modify the taxes, to find even part-time work for such persons, this will be good just for everybody
. Yet, and I want to stress on this, if some person declares himself satisfied with this allowance the state authorities are bound to accept this as his basic right, and it must be how he wants, they will try to help him, but must leave him if he insists! Because, hmm, this is it to live in paradise, there will grow various fruits, but if one does not want to eat, then this is up to him. Though who will want to receive about 10 times
less than what he can have (at least 5-6 times, I have made some calculations in the Manifesto)? And I answer at once: who has some higher goals
in the moment, this all is a matter of priority of values
(let me not search for examples, this is obvious).
I don't think there is necessary to speak much more about this, everything can be slightly varied by each state and in each moment, the funds have to be searched, another parts of the population can be included, et cetera. The idea is in the end to give such allowances to each newborn child (because he will already have his PIN code), but the money will be paid to those who care about him, and only after, say, 12, he will receive directly the money; the sum can be reduced for the children, but everything is a matter of habit, and each child, surely, costs not less than this sum, i.e. for him are spent more money (especially after about 13-14 years), so that this approach is also justified and even better. And this is financial securing of the person, he will not only be more quiet, he will try to give his utmost, nearly always when he can, I am convinced in this. The proper objections to this proposition of mine can be not that this will be big money for the state to give to everybody, but that this will not be enough
, because there always remain the problems with the housing, healthcare, education, and so on, to some of which topics we will come, but this is simply obligatory requirement for every person and every state in the third millennium, surely. And this approach (obviously) debases the power of money, it will be accepted with open arms in every society and in all times, providing we are able to do this (but we are
able -- you prove with experiments that this is not possible).
Yet 1/3 MMS will be quite good for one in need, no matter that it looks a funny amount, because I personally receive such pension and it is enough
for me, really (and I can even make little savings, of about 20 % of it). Well, I have enormous
experience in living in misery for the last more than 25 democratic years, so that I am used to this, but it is possible even for a single person -- providing he is healthy, owns the flat where lives, cooks everything alone, is not vain to want to communicate with the people and visit various events, and so on (and if the city transport is very expensive then he does not use it at all, how I do, I walk for 5 to 10 bus stops, when necessary). And if one lives with some relative or friend then everything becomes cheaper, and if he is not at pension age (and even if is) he can also find some part-time work, win some coins more, so that it is not hopeless. To give you just some examples: if you make coffee at home it turns to cost to you about 7 (to 10) times less than if you drink it at the street, then cooking makes the food 3-4 times cheaper, and buying ready food in the shops is another 5 to 10 times cheaper than visiting restaurants, clothes nowadays are thrown to the garbage or can be bought as second hand, and so on. So that, as I said, it depends on the priority of values for you.
2. Social Ministry
As far as I know there is no Social Ministry (SM) in most of the countries, there are similar
institutions elsewhere, and in Bulgaria there is a Ministry of Labour and Social Cares, but what I mean is something else, although the work can be done by some department of this or other Ministry. The existing Ministries work by concrete programs, they do necessary work, no denying this, but what I mean is to develop
such programs, to make necessary statistics, to enrol the entire
population in some lists with their social status and with other data, to elaborate common strategy
for fighting the poverty, to think about ways for providing of social prices (to what I will come in the next section) for different social products, and other similar questions, and this Ministry has to be part of each Government, no matter how right- or left- wing it is, the social problems must not
be questions for discussions, they are obvious -- for the followers of NAPUK party --, it is time to take the necessary measures!
Because, you see, there are things that a good ruler understands even better than the subjects, there is often no need to ask the people what they want, for the simple reasons that the ruler knows this, and that the people can make the situation even worse if asked. These are obvious things, the democracy is based on cheating or delusion, let's be clear about this, let us not reject the whole human history where for the most part of it there were some centrally chosen, by right, or sometimes by wrong, principle, rulers, and in the majority of cases they have fulfilled their duties; let us not raise the slogan "Compromises with everybody but not with the communists" (how our notorious UDF, Union of the Democratic Forces, which can now alone get even not one single percent of the votes, but has got in its time more than 50 %, and this by nearly 100 % electoral activity, against today's about 45 % activity). The democracy is a good, I would say even brilliant
, cheating, but it is cheating nonetheless, because it is obvious that those at the bottom of social pyramid understand nothing of economics, management, public relations, they can choose only on basis of in
significant parameters, such kind of choice is done nowhere
else, there are used only democratic elements
, here and there!
So that the social program, which has to be followed by all
, I repeat, all Governments, has to be unchangeable in its core, only some details or rates of growth can be discussed and changed, and the SM has to be a permanent body, and more scientific than the other ministries. It has to have under its subordination this very important AB, via which other social payments can be performed. With one good statistics at hand, say, about unemployment, but by professions and ages and other parameters, also about the distribution of people by their income, with accounting for dependent persons, many functions will be done properly, not temporarily for the moment and then forgotten. And there is this important problem that the income tax has to be collected according to the real
number of people who use the received money, including children or old people et cetera, because the notion family might have changed its meaning but then remains the notion together living! Everybody has to made his (surely her) choice and clear the point whether he lives alone or in group with somebody, no matter whether they make or not sex, and whether they live on one place (it is supposed that when people live in one flat they build a group, but there can be differences sometimes).
This is not so difficult to be made, it has to be done automatically, by default, using the data for heirs, their age, place of living, and so on, but everybody has to confirm the choice, and then will be easy to say at once when a single mother, or surely also a father, receives her or his money, how much income tax has to be paid. Yet this is done nowhere in the world, as far as I know. Also some people live in common group, as if household is the better word, with their parents, and there surely will be difference in the taxing in different ways. In this connection I see the major problem with the … dividing
of the children, because it is better if is done so. If this is not done, then, if there are two known parents, each child is divided in equal halves between them and counted with each of the parents, what solves the problem with different children, and the taxes are calculated for each of the grown persons. For example, there is a together living group of one parent A and another B, and 3 children, C, D, and E, where C is of A and possible another parent, E is of B with another parent, and only D is of them both. Then A is counted as A + 1/2 of B + 1/2 of D, what gives 2 persons, hence his (or maybe her, it is said nothing, they may be even homosexuals) income is divided by 2 and then paid or not (if this gives less than 1 MMS) the necessary tax; the same will be the calculations for B, but with different children. Still, there can happen that one child has not another parent (or has … third parent, why not, in principle this has also to be allowed), then that parent has to be counted for having another 1/2 of a child more.
But this is when receiving money, yet when is necessary to calculate the household-group of people then they are 5 persons with the summary income of A and B (but one of them may have no income for some time). This seems a bit complicated (although for the computers these are not problems), so that I have long ago come to the idea to add each child to only one
of the parents from the moment of very birth
, what will simplify the matters, if this will be somehow accepted psychologically by the people (and lawfully, naturally). There can be used some default scheme, like that the child is given to the parent of the same sex, if he or she has not already whatever child, maybe the same even if the parent has one child, but not if he /she has two or more (where there have not to be allowed more than 2 children by a parent, and even 1 is considered enough). This should not be a problem and has also to be decided when signing of some agreement for common living, but these are questions not related directly with this party, so that I will not dwell further on them.
The group of together living people, though, is an important point when speaking about social prices for some goods, because this will give the real expenses, coupled with the real income of the participants in the group. It is quite thinkable to count a grown but not enough child as having his or her concrete part of the income from the one parent, summed with that of the other, which parts can, of course, differ, and if this child lives separated from them then this is important, but even if does not live so this can somehow be accounted for. Yet the most important function of SM will be to make ends meet with all taxes, social prices, lifelong allowances, and other payments. It can be, after all, part of the Ministry of Finances, yet it has to be also a kind of scientific department, not only executive but first of all initiative structure for making of propositions, so that I think that it is better if it is a separate Ministry (or Committee).
The necessity of such social institution is obvious (yet lacking) because nowadays the existence of poor and especially miserable persons is a crying anomaly, there may exist some
difference in the income of people, but not so big, and not much under 1 MMS; if such people still exist somewhere (in fact, everywhere
) then they have to receive some additional money simply because were born in the state. Put in other words, this means that one should not feel in unequal position
only because he is poor, this may happen with everyone but must not be counted for disgrace, because -- well, if you have not thought about this I have though enough, being unemployed for more than a quarter of a century just because was too higher
educated for our transitional period which never ends -- so because unemployed under market mechanism are usually … better
or more morale people, yeah! This is so because they are not so bold to push ahead, to shove the others with their elbows in order to make faster career, or are somehow disabled, or have to care about somebody, or don't like to flatter the immediate boss and so on; there can, naturally, happen that they are unorganized or drug addicted, or just lazy, but in such cases they usually find some ways to receive help, while when they are simply with higher moral they don't dare to push ahead for some additional money (or they also want more interesting work, think that the mass cheating in the business is not for them, such reasons). But, as I said, even if the unemployed are just lazy they have to receive some money for modest living and somebody has to talk to them to find ways for personal help, because everybody is good in something (the point is to find in what exactly), so that this Ministry is necessary. OK, there are other things to be said, but I will continue with them in the next section, because the questions are related.
3. Social Prices For Social Goods
The beginning here is easy: the market, of course, is not
the best thing in the world, it has many drawbacks, and one has to fight with it quite often, so that there have to be social prices for some products declared as Social Products (SP), or socially necessary products. Yeah, but the market is also not so bad a thing, how the communists have stated (don't exaggerate whatever, right?), because if people have not enough money appear various imitations of bad quality (like the last hit
in culinary industry -- emulsion from pork skins, put en masse in the cheapest sausages), there can be something worse than the market, and this is uncontrolled (or badly controlled) state's monopoly
, like all communal expenses
(electricity, central heating, water, then city transport), as well also some payments that has to be abolished, like they were under the socialism, but we have restored them now, namely: education fees, payments for healthcare, and something else probably!
So that we have to try to imitate the socialism
(or communism, if you like), and introduce again some social products -- not only in the poorest countries, this as approach is necessary and applicable everywhere --, what (as I mentioned in the Manifesto) is harder to be done, but if done (according to these propositions, or in some similar way) will turn to be even better
, because when restoring of the expenses is done it is done to the exact persons who need this restoring, not to the others (so that the market remains, but is properly corrected). Although socialist, this approach of offering something on cheaper prices to your own circle of people is not new and is used also under the very capitalism, offering to the workers cheaper or free refreshments, coffee, lunch, stay in holiday home, company vehicles, etc., so that the main difference here is that I require to count the entire nation for your own people, I think like a good statesman (and because of this our statesmen pay no attention at all to me, because I am too good statesman, better than them).
OK, in order to correct the market have to be introduced SP (yet there can be necessary other categories and they will easily be added, when we have already made two divisions of the products, because two is more or less equivalent
to whatever finite number -- to remind you about binary digits). This returning of the money and whatever financial operations have to be done via some bank, which can be another Social Bank (SB), or there can be used the same AB for the lifelong allowances. All accounts are again according to the same unique number or PIN code, but they will concern here not miserable persons with less than 1/3 MMS, but people from about 0.5 MMS and to 1.5 MMS on a person in a household or group of together living people, because this is still lower income, the average one has to begin somewhere above 2 MMS. I have discussed this somewhere under my usual pseudonym (and using another terminology, when possible, in order to mask my pen-name) maybe in more details, but here will try to be relatively brief and will begin with my direct decision.
I propose all SP till the moment (one has to begin with only the central heating) to be paid initially by … half price
, what looks pretty attractive for the people, does it not? Then the idea is that all such SP are free
for people with income less than 0.5 MMS, those with 1.0 MMS will pay exactly this 0.5 SP price, and those with 1.5 MMS will pay the whole SP, step by step increasing by 10 % each 10 % of the income (i.e. from 0.5 to 0.6 MMS will be paid only 10 % of these expenses, till 0.7 -- 20 %, and so on), yet I repeat, on household. Then from 1.5 MMS to 3 MMS nothing is changed for the SP goods, but from 3 to 5 MMS can be required even a little increasing
of these products, only very moderate: till 3.1 MMS -- 1.01 of the price, till 3.2 -- 1.02, and so on, for 4 MMS by 1.1 for SP, and so on, and for 5 MMS by 1.2 of SP, what I think is only just. It has to be mentioned also that by an average salary of 2.5 MMS, counting on household basis (with 1 dependent person) will give about 1.5 MMS on person (not exactly divided by 2 because something more is always received for the other person), so that the middle of the income will correspond to 100 percent payment of SP goods or services. The calculations will be done each quarter (or even half an year), but this will be current calculations, which will become final in the end of the year. In any case, there are good reasons to expect that the companies offering SP services will get nearly 90 % of made expenses (without other special measures) for persons with income higher than 0.5 MMS, what can turn out to be even more
than what they receive (for example, our company for central heating in Sofia has come once to nearly bankrupt because there were whole buildings with unpaid more than 50 % of the bills).
Yes, and surely there have to be used some special cards like the usual bank cards, where each item will have its number, and these numbers will be not at all many, probably about ten or twenty, but can be much more if, for example, will be included other products like bread, milk, sugar, et cetera. Those who live really poor, with income less then 0.5 MMS on capita of the household should not
exist, there have to be found ways for this, can be searched loans from wealthier countries, whatever, when the concrete persons with concrete income are known some solution will be found. Then about people even worse than this, who are literally miserable, they will be partially covered by the monthly allowances, and also will be searched help (where the easiest thing is to find work for them, to be sure). Then those from 0.5 to 1 MMS will be probably covered from the increased SP prices for the rich persons (3 – 5 MMS), and those above 1 MMS (but below 1.5) will require not really big help from somewhere. Naturally that if someone pays the initial 50 %, but pays not the additional 20 or 30 or how much percents are calculated for him, then the "tap" will be closed for him via blocking of the social cards (say, after 2 weeks).
Yet this scheme is good and it can be applied also in the shops where are sold usual products together with some SP such (like bread etc.). If the shop is a big one, like supermarket, then there will be no problems, and on the product can be printed also the social bar-code (say, under some blue … umbrella -- because this is a kind of social "umbrella") and it has to be entered separately (or the computerized system of the shop will easily find the correspondence of the code of the product with the necessary social code). In this situation there are no problems if there is also only percentage
of SP for some products (say, the milk of some brand, which is SP, is such on 80 % because the packaging is not SP, or some other rather funny exceptions). The customers will have to carry with them one more bank card, but such is our fate nowadays. There can be found some decision even for small rural places, where is only a common shop, and they have not such sophisticated shopping systems: then could be accepted the Solomonic decision to calculate some average sums for such expenses and to pay only to the poorest by 10 euro in month, something of the kind.
The point is that introducing some social code for the products allows us to enter always some exceptions for some products. For example, can be paid for medical treatment of cancer patients, or AIDS positive, or alcoholics, and on and on, what are things that as if never will disappear from our life, i.e. this is not like to have in mind only the prices on central heating or city transport and this only in Bulgaria, because it is the EU poorest area -- nice rhyme, ah? In addition to this, for every person will be kept exact records of all
his (or her) social expenses, and these are exceedingly important data for various statistics and planning. Or it might be that some company decides to propose something on similar conditions, what will be for it a good advertisement
. Say, it can declare that in their shops till one loaf of bread is considered as SP, if only the client has card for their shop and that he buys, say, at least on 50 euro in month by them, something in that spirit. As also for all specialized social products and services can be sent information to the particular institutions, and so on. Or, too, companies or private persons can show a wish to sponsor a certain type of expenses and only it, this is notably valuable difference, which will raise the very sponsoring, so that such cards can help also to wealthy countries. In general, a right decision in the general case is always preferable before many different ad hoc decisions in each special case.
Yet there can be another approach, that can be applied together with this, because it will find the necessary money for some of the SP goods, and this is introducing of additional communal deductions
! It is not right to say taxes, because I have in mind deductions from the personal income before
the imposition of taxes, in the way like for the pension payments and of order from 10 to 20 %, which will be taken from every working person but will be given directly to some major providers of communal services, in proportion with the calculations of the spent for these services money. This is also some imitation of what was done under the totalitarianism, but creatively modified, and can be easily introduced (or rejected) and used only for the following: central heating, electricity, water supply, and city transport, because these are monopolistic providers, there is no competition there, the prices are centrally established, and the very firms are counted on the fingers.
I will not make more exact calculations here, because I don't know what percentage of the income on the average and for different categories of people this may make, but I will give roughly the idea. For the quite affluent people the communal expenses reach probably about 30 % (but only for the above-mentioned services they will be, say, 20 %), then for the middle "class" (2-3 MMS per capita) they have to be 40 %, what is also around the middle (but for the restricted services they will make 30 %), for the low-middle (1-2 MMS), the communal expenses make about 50 % (in poor countries surely, you have to believe me, and on restricted scale are about 40 %), and for the miserable they reach probably 60 % (where the most restricted expenses are about 50 %). This has to be more or less so, and I personally, as of the last category, spend by super-economy (and no transport expenses at all) about 1/3 for food and drinking (a bit less), 1/3 for communal expenses in the warm period (a bit more), and another 1/3 for the central heating in the winter, with the detail that I try also to spare something, what is on the average about 20 %; briefly said, this will make on the average about 50 % for heating and electricity (the water is symbolic for me).
Hence about 30 % (roughly 1/3) of the income for: heating, electricity, water, and city transport, is quite real average figure, and if are applied 10 % communal deductions and then used for 30 % of the same income this will mean that 1/3 of these expenses will be covered, or at least 30 %, what will give quite decent reducing of the prices! Because of this I think that 20 % of such deductions will cover very quietly half of all communal expenses, so that maybe even 15 % will be sufficient. The exact calculations can be easily made on a regional or state level taking the whole sum of these services and the received income (including pensions etc.), but it will be in any case necessary to make one experiment in some isolated town (like also with all my propositions). There can be two objections here, I suppose, where the first is that these deductions will be taken from only those who work but will be applied also to pensioners etc., but it is always so with the taxes, they are taken from those, from whom they can be taken, i.e. from those who receive something being employed. And the second objection is that the richer, for whom the communal expenses make smaller part, will pay practically for the poor ones, for whom these expenses make bigger part of the income, but this is, in its core, the idea of the socialism, or the humanity, or the developed capitalism, or you name it. Maybe the state can raise also objection that it will be deprived of its income tax from the citizens for the amount of money which will be returned to the companies providers of the services, but there are 2 ways out for the state: either it will reject this profit in the interest of people, or will deduce somehow the tax from the money which it will give to those companies.
And there, I am sure, can be found other financial ways for redistributing of the money (from the richer to the poorer), because it, most probably, has been initially distributed not quite rightly (given more to the richer, in order to make
them rich), and in all cases not moral or just, so that corrections were necessary to be made.
4. Other Moments
The other moments are that the proposed till now measures are necessary but not enough, because there have to be decent living premises for everybody, what is not always the case. And one can not raise a tent on some square in the town, and however richer people on the average become there always exist such citizens who live under very bad conditions, because people use the flats as kind of investment
and buy second or third one but do not live there oftener than a pair of weeks in the year. This is a wrong way, and the right is to exist free premises that can be given to everyone in need, be they rooms is some dormitories, what is even more necessary for guests in some towns because the hotel or motel rooms are, obviously, not for everyone, they are expensive. I'll tell you what means expensive: this is if the roof for a night costs more than about the daily eating, when you buy the food (not eating in restaurant), and even better if this costs about some moderate breakfast (and, for example, I spend for a daily eating about 1 bus ticket, or a bit less, but a night in the cheapest hostel in Bulgaria is not less than 5 such tickets, probably 10), i.e. there are not places to stay for a night for nearly beggars. Yeah, but in old times such places were
, to the monasteries at least, and maybe they exist also today, but not in countries like Bulgaria (and, I suppose, also Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, and others). So that these problems are not solved generally but only here and there and for the relatively well-off.
Also places for cheaper or free eating are not considered as necessary for our time, but if you ask me they are always necessary, because I continue to compare with the living in paradise, where is, or was, possible to find what to eat, what to drink, and where to sleep, so that, ultimately, such places have to exist somehow in all towns. To say nothing about places for free health- and dental care, places for education (even in the libraries are necessary cards which cost something), places for free listening to music, or calling somebody by the phone, or using of Internet, and so on. Or take the usual baths, which for centuries and millenniums were considered as necessity for all people, but, for example, the central mineral bath in Sofia, known from 5th century, simply ceased to exist with the coming of our democracy and I don't know whether some bath in Sofia exists at all! Yes, and where such necessity happens to exist, as I have heard, an usual bathing costed about … 20 eggs, while under our totalitarianism the price was about 1-2 eggs, that's it! So that the capitalism, obviously, is worse
than the real socialism was, in sense of cares for the people, what contradicts to the logic, because nowadays we are better equipped, and all people are relatively wealthier, so that everything should have been better, but is not.
Maybe, if these allowances and social prices are introduced, there have to be some items for emergency
cares, which could have been covered later from some funds, if in some limits (say to 3 free meals in a month, to 5 bus tickets monthly, to one night sleeping monthly, to 5 medical visits in an year, free medicaments for about 1/2 MMS in an year, something of the kind). These things have to be discussed in each country, this is why I say that SM has to be permanent body and to take the necessary decisions non-related with whatever political dividends. Because let us look from another angle at the things, let us not forget that the money is chiefly means
for existence, it does not stay long time in the hands of those to whom is given, it changes hands, it may remain longer in the hands of the … wealthier, not the poorer, when is given more generously to the poorer! I don't invent, because I have now no teeth, even false ones, and have visited no dentists for about 25
years, so that they have lost
a sufficient amount of money, if dental care was affordable for me; the same about the bus tickets (I walk by feet), about the milk (I eat … egg shells for the calcium), about the physicians (I visit no one and have begun to jump and make push-ups, in my nearly 70, and I have built muscles, really), and so on. And I can give you another circumstantial proof that giving more money to the (poor) people it will be spend fast, especially in poor countries, and this will enliven the economy: in Bulgaria the pensions begin to be paid from 7th of the month, and exactly from that day, and for about one week, the prices of basic foods (like bread, sunflower oil, sugar, milk, etc.) are with about 10 to 15 % higher (not that they are specially raised, usually not, but discounts were not made and the cheapest sorts disappear).
So that I continue to be convinced that with my NAPUK party the wealthy will have not less advantages than the poor, and this is why I make efforts to translate these materials in as many languages as I can. Now remains only to cast a glance in the future.
Some knowledge or predictions of the future are necessary in order to avoid big social disturbances, this is clear, because what has to happen happens, but if it can't find its way in the easiest manner then appear entirely unnecessary bloodshed (like these World Wars just in order to select
better nations, which selection is grounded with nothing, after so many millenniums all
human beings are good enough, as well also bad enough, to be sure). We have many many problems with which to fight, like: the terribly fast development rates in whatever field, the insufficient stimulus of money for the majority of people, the paradoxical misery on the background of affluence, the drastic changes in private life of the people, like the disappearing of the families, the unmotivated existence of big private property, such that is used not for personal needs but for organization of production, what means for exploitation, the unavoidable equalizing of life in all countries, what means that there disappear even nations or nationalities, the exceedingly high overpopulation of the world, the changing of our whole environment with crazy velocity and away from the nature, the stronger feeling of lack of purpose in life the more powerful we became (because dialectically the utmost level of power has to be some rejecting of power, some disappearing of life, the knowledge has to deny the knowledge, if we become powerful like gods we have to cease
to live, not to renovate ourselves via birth), the always bad
forms (because the bad is hidden in us) for social governing of people, our inability to … destroy things (we can, or are able to learn how, to build something, but we don't care about its destroying -- take the garbage for example), and so on.
As I have mentioned, I am now feeling more or less enlightened, so that I give a thought from time to time to some of these problems, yet their solution is not easy, if in general case, no matter that I want dynamical
solution, not solving once and for all (like fighting the last war, after which will come the 1000 years lasting peace, what is an utopia)! I think that the material has grown big enough and don't want to make it much bigger, but something am bound to say, because this party with its program has to become the last
party and there are many things that have to fall in one or another time in its scope. For example, with the fast development rates we can fight when not trying to compete in such a hurry, we have better to try to live more interesting, to turn our sight to ourselves, not to the external world, have to become more spiritual, so to say; besides, there is reached for some time the ceiling of our mental capacities, the sciences become more and more un
attractive field for the scientists, in relatively similar way how in the various sports are reached the limits of human body, the sportsmen begin to look like … monsters, with over-developed muscles!
Then the insufficient stimulation of money can be increased adding some moral values, some publicity (which, alas, is only a chimera for the overwhelming majority), or then also by allowing of receiving of some bonuses from the other people (to what I will come in the Codex). About the disappearance of families I have shortly written my Communionismo
where propose new voluntarily chosen
families, which is high time to learn to build. About the private property is better to speak also in the Codex, where the idea is in reasonable … rejecting of the inheritance
of big exploitative property. The unavoidable equalizing of life in all countries is not really bad thing and it requires only new … morality to what I may come also in the Codex; the same about the social ruling and the party members. And the question with our inability to destroy things I raise in my Apocalypse
where the decision is more or less obvious, we have to use better the goods, what we will begin to do, when will cease by the by with our unlimited consumption just because have enough money to allow us this, i.e. this is a question of moral values. Ah, I will better leave also my view to the life in the near future, and one original financial idea for fighting the overpopulation because there is else not much what to say in the Codex, it is chiefly moralizing, and people don't like much sermons.
So that is my Program of NAPUK party, that has to be developed in each country according to the conditions in it, and be renovated from time to time by the Social Ministry, in order not only to fight the disgusting misery of some (moral and /or creative) minority, but also to add new incentives for the working masses (except the material stimuli), and to increase in this way the exploitation, maintaining one main right of everybody, the right to be exploited. If we will not come to some consensus about the necessity of exploitation, avoiding of misery, providing of new stimuli for self-exploitation, and adjusting to the future tendencies in the society, we will only increase the social disturbances, but not exclude the objective consequences. So that we better do what is necessary and stop being ruled only by the money.
June, 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria