MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

In the light of Manifesto social responsibility is not only an informal promotion of systemic, i.e. requisitely holistic behavior, aimed at overcoming the current crisis and becoming a new socio-economic order, replacing the monopolistic neo-liberalism as soon as possible for humankind to survive and avoid the 3rd world war. It is also a tool of power-holders aimed at preventing the pending new socio-economic order and at keeping their privileges and benefits.

The selected challenge and viewpoint Over my recent 13 years of work on social responsibility (SR) as an informal promotion of systemic, i.e. requisitely holistic behavior I tackled SR from other viewpoints than here: as a non-technological invention-innovation-diffusion process leading the current humankind out of the current global socio-economic crisis, although the concept of SR is not legally obligatory (ISO, 2010;EU, 2011).I see the alternative to SR in the 3 rd world war that is there since USA proclaimed the war on terror in 2002 (that has caused more than ten wars and hundred million displaced persons in 2017).The idea to analyze social responsibility in terms of the Manifesto of the Communist Party 170 years after its making opens another viewpoint: the one of abuse of SR and people and bluffing people's masses to the short-term benefit of power-holders by SR on paper rather than in reality.

Some statements from the Manifesto
A basic statement in Manifesto says: the economic production and its unavoidable consequence -the social structure makethe basis for the political and intellectual history of the given period.Hence, the entire human history consists of class fights between the exploiting / governing and the exploited / governed classes on various stages of the social development.Now, this fight attained a level on which the exploited / oppressed class (proletariat) cannot free itself, unless it frees the entire society (including the bourgeoisie) from exploitation, oppression and class combats.(Engels, 1883).
Further on, Manifesto states, among others, the following: The modern bourgeois society that abolished the feudal society, did not erase the class oppositions; it only established new classes, new oppression preconditions, and new fight forms.
The bourgeoisie period simplified the class oppositions.The entire society is increasingly divided into two big enemy camps, directly opposing each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat.
The modern government is only a committee governing the common affairs of the entire bourgeois class.
All previous classes that gained power, tried to keep its gained life position by imposing on the entire society its way of benefits.The proletarians can gain the societal production forces only by abolishing the previous way of gaining, hence the entire previous way of appropriation.They own nothing to be secured; they must destroy everything that has so far assured and secured the private property.

Some thoughts after reading the Manifesto
The Manifesto of the Communist Party is now 170 years old, but especially its Chapters 2 and 3 (Marx, Engels, 1848) matter today, too.The current global socio-economic situation and the expected 4 th industrial revolution do not deny the fact, which the Manifesto exposes (see above).In this light, documents on (Corporate) Social Responsibility (ISO, 2010;EU, 2011;UNO, 2000 and2004) can be seen as explorers' attempts to diminish their danger of the end of their power and benefit, via the global political and professional bodies of humankind.
The facts that (1) the ISO (2010) speaks in ISO 26000 about the corporate SR, (2) we detected no literature on the socially responsible society (Mulej, Žakelj, Merhar, in process),confirm the empirical finding (e.g.Perkins, 2012) that corporations are more powerful than governments that are actually tools of the most influential (one-sided rather than socially responsible!) corporations.The books and documents about the 4 th industrial revolution speak of the duty of humans as employees to adapt to the businesses' , i.e. employers' , i.e. exploiters' interests; they devote no real attention to SR and/or the rights of humans as employees and citizens (Schwab, 2016).

Basics about social responsibility
The first documents on SR are old, but SR entered the international global documents, when the crisis of the neo-liberal socio-economic order became visibly unsolvable and hence the end of the bourgeois society was pending because the usual tools of economics no longer worked (see for details e.g.Mulej &Dyck, ed., 2014;Merhar, Žakelj, Mulej, 2014;Mulej et al., ed., 2016;references therein).The one-sidedness of decision makers can no longer be compensated by the (monopolized!!) market.Decision makers need a more holistic and broader basis, which law, as an external motivation, cannot provide (Bergant, 2017;Bohinc, 2016;Gostiša, 2017;Poglajen, 2017;Hrast et al., ed., 2006Hrast et al., ed., -2017, yearly), yearly).Law needs help from the internal motivation along with the biological and external ones (Pink, 2011), including SR.
SR calls for the internal motivation, added to law and market.SR means one's responsibility for one's impacts on society, i.e. humans and nature; all its contents are linked by the notions of interdependence and holism in ISO 26000 (ISO, 2010).Hence SR supports informal systemic behavior (see for details : Mulej with coauthors, 2013).
Responsibility, Interdependence and Holistic approach are the three crucial concepts of the (corporate, i.e. all organizations') SR, i.e. responsibility for their influences on society, i.e. humans and nature.See Figure 1.Though, publications mentioned on the Google website under 'EU and corporate social responsibility' , visited in December 2017, fail to expose interdependence and holistic approach to SR.Thus, the one-sidedness that has caused all crises, including world wars, remains the prevailing practice; therefore, crises cannot stop.And humankind can hardly survive.
SR only fictitiously and in a short term causes uncovered and avoidable costs (opponents of SR quote costs as reasons against SR, often; see www on corporate SR).Costs of SR behavior are smaller -as opportunity costs that are hidden in book-keeping datathan costs visible in book-keeping data, such as cost resulting from: • Mistrust of/to managers, coworkers, and business partners, and resulting costly double-checking; • Double-checking of creditworthiness of new business partners, replacing the lost ones, and persuading them; • Lack of well-being and satisfaction, causing poor work; • Strikes, resulting from dissatisfaction; • Loss and gaining of new high-quality co-workers and other business partners; • Manager's and co-workers' routine-addicted rather than creative/innovative behavior; • Misery or affluence and poor health and illnesses (which are costly cured rather than prevented); • Remediation of consequences of natural disasters, terror, and wars (which are costly cured rather than prevented); • Etc.
2 The real holism reaches beyond human capacities, because it covers all attributes from all existing viewpoints and all synergies.If holism is limited to one's single selected viewpoint, profession, specialization, interest etc., it is a fictitious holism, causing many oversights and resulting mistakes all way to world wars.The realistic way between these extremes is called 'the requisite holism' (RH) (Mulej with coauthors, 2013, after Mulej, 1974and Mulej &Kajzer, 1998).
Thus, SR changes the practice of ownership as defined by the -still accepted -Roman law saying that the ownership gives to the owner the right of use and abuse.SR allows no abuse.But, SR depends on free will (ISO 26000 by ISO, 2010;EU, 2011), SR is a crucial non-technological innovation processes that should result in SR as a normal part of human values, culture, ethics and norms (VCEN).If VCEN are visible in, and supported by, RH enterprise policy/governance, the organization can flourish in the current global market, including SR as a way out from the current socio-economic crisis.(Mulej &Dyck, ed., 2014) Without SR, the current civilization hardly has a chance to survive.We prefer no limitation of SR to companies: companies follow influential humans' decisions.SR is a human attribute.Interdependence makes humans honest and leads from one-sidedness to holism; human actions start with informal or formalized (organizational) governance that considers, if it is systemic, the fact that all subjects are inter-connected because they are interdependent due to nature and specialization.Hence one should strive at as-holisticas-possible quality of life (i.e.requisitely holistic objective and subjective well-being) and at human solidarity as a part of equality and brotherhood along with freedom, by ethics of interdependence, including respect for ecological sensibility and natural limitations.SR hence demands reconciliation of narrower, broader, short-term and long-term perspectives with ecological and other nature-respecting views as necessary elements of VCEN of people, expressed as SR (Mulej et al, 2013).SR and well-being of many rather than a few only should result, for the current civilization's survival.
Several lines of action might be necessary for SR as a socio-economic order indirectly realizing the Manifesto (ibid, adapted): Humans as individuals act as consumers.Consumers prefer suppliers with the image of SR.Greed is also less popular than it used to be.
Humans as organizations act as: (1) suppliers, (2) customers, (3) public awareness makers, and (4) users.In all roles they compete with others.The ones with the best image of RH innovators and SR actors in the market attract most customers and good workers and succeed.Reaching beyond law toward SR and RH helps competitiveness.
Humans via their political bodies support competition and fight monopolies and other bases of abuse of the more influential ones' influence in their relations with the others.Thus, they support RH and SR with legal and moral tools.
Humans as nationsshould do the same on the international levels, all way to the global democracy, including a world government, made of very honest persons and coworkers.
Humans as teachers, parents, journalists, politicians, and other public-opinion makers support creation of VCEN including SR.
This might lead away from one-sided power-holders to RH in society and economy by SR.
Who can start the process?Many influential persons made history by making their individual values a culture, shared by a group of their followers, who then diffused this culture in order to make it a socially acceptable ethic, resulting in the social norms, making VCEN a permanent circle.Norms may become law and support SR/RH, while SR reaches beyond law (ISO, 2010).Legal preconditions for law and habits to be innovated in order to support RH/SR and resulting survival of humankind are also needed, but they exceed the available room here.Survival of humankind cannot be taken care of well, as long as the (international) law has its legal basis on agreement without legal enforcement, thus denying itself as law (Bohinc, 2016 and2017).Countries/states obviously tend to often prefer their (businesses') more narrow and short-term interests over their citizens' broader and more long-term ones, thus ruining human basis of existence all way to threatening survival of their people and humankind.Their (rare and poor) actions following countries' global agreement at the UNO 'Paris 2015' conference on climate change and its followups demonstrate this, according to the public media reports.This is very dangerous and it requires SR urgently for humankind to survive.But we detected no references on nations' , governments' or global SR (Žakelj, 2017).
Further findings matter very much: the modern technology replaces many jobs and crucially cuts the number of permanently employing jobs.Precarious employment is reaching close to 50% of all jobs (Poglajen, 2017).These facts tend to destroy proletariat as a coherent class, which Marx and Engels hoped for.Not only per nations and professions, but also per types of employment, the proletarians (who now include also the 'whitecollars') differ also per their level of the entrepreneurial spirit, willingness and capacity to take risk as sole entrepreneurs or partners (Hrast, Ademovič, 2017).
A further finding about SR in the light of Manifesto.The East-West competition between 'capitalism' and 'communism/socialism' increased the role of Keynesian teaching on economics, including the redistribution by the government to the benefit of the lower income classes.This diminished the Manifesto's potential to cause its foreseen changes in social power distribution.After the end of the Soviet Union and Bloc, and the end of Yugoslavia and the nonalignment, this competition was over.Though, the power-holders' danger to lose their power and privileges could show up again.SR might be called a new replacement of the social-market economy model of the previous type, aimed to prolong the current power-holders privileges and prevent realization of Manifesto.

SR as new socio-economic order
'Problems cannot be solved with the mentality that has caused them' (Albert Einstein).
This make us think about humans, their responsibility, values, culture, ethic, and norms (VCEN), with a focus on entrepreneurial and business life, enterprise policy/governance, SR, and well-being.It makes us think about a mentality innovation (both as a process of beneficial change and as its outcome that is a new benefit of its users).Thus, one should realize a synergy of: (a) SR, (b) innovation, (c) the (Dialectical) Systems Theory (as the theory of attainment of RH); and (d) enterprise policy/governance, for enterprise's stakeholders' well-being, (e) supported by a national SR strategy.Otherwise the benefit of all can hardly be yielded -and Manifesto must become reality by force instead by SR.
This means that we do not see the (corporate) SR as a simple charity or honesty of owners and managers in their relations with their coworkers, business partners, broader society (including charity as a part of SR) and nature (as a general precondition of human survival after centuries of destruction rather than maintenance of the nature, including humans), but as a/the new socio-economic order after neo-liberalism and its 'Bubble Economy' .The latter disregards the natural and human capacities too much to be allowed to continue destroying humankind and its natural preconditions.Without SR, the current civilization hardly has a chance to survive.SR hence demands reconciliation of narrower, broader, short-term and long-term perspectives with ecological and other nature-respecting views as necessary elements of VCEN of people, expressed as SR.
The current practice is the clear dead alley caused by bourgeois neo-liberalist economics of the decades after World War II, e.g.Mulej, Dyck, ed., 2014); In less than 150 years the world-wide span of wealth (measured in national percapita-income) has grown from 3:1 to +500:1, leaving 85% of humankind under six USD a day and hence angry and envious, and/or without ambitions and buying capacity.
The natural carrying capacity of the Planet Earth to support the destructive living style of the current civilization was overburdened several decades ago.
The increase of standard of living after the 2 nd World War was and is fictitious: the huge cost of maintenance of the natural preconditions for humankind to survive has been postponed and piled up rather than covered in real time.The unavoidable renewal of these preconditions may cost more than both world-wars combined, if the action is immediate; or even 20% of the world-wide GWB, if the action is postponed for another 20 or so years (which is happening).
The increase of standard of living after the 2 nd World War was and is fictitious, also, because of growing and hidden debts of countries of the so-called developed world.These debts are now made visible around the world; the debts to humans' environment/nature are not included.
The big depression of 1930s, to which the current crisis is found quite similar, according to many authors, was not simply resolved with Keynes's economic measures, but continued as the 2 nd world war in order for humankind to resolve the problems left over after the 1 st world war.Similar problems are around.And so are nuclear weapons, able to destroy the Planet Earth several times; this new situation is crucially dangerous.
People forgot that organizations, including enterprises and states/governments are their tools rather than authorities above people; they are tools of those in the positions of higher human impact, only, more or less.
The 'Bubble Economy' cannot last.SR must replace it.Etc.
In other words, the lack of SR destroyed the slaves-owning and feudal societies and created room for democracy and free-market economy, including SR (called invisible hand by Adam Smith, who saw in it the long-term interdependence with no monopolies); but the same lack of SR is surviving, called financial, neoliberal or feudal capitalism.Legal names differ, not much else.This is why SR is so much needed and discussed today (e.g.Zore et al., 2016).
Manifesto was correct then and matters today: abuse must be replaced by SR/RH for humankind -and its organizations, for that matter -to survive as the current civilization.This civilization faces problems of (1) extreme division and (2) affluence, too, along with (3) destruction of the natural preconditions of humankind's survival.Affluence is subjective; it causes the lack of ambition to work hard in order to have more, once one has everything one feels as a need (Mulej et al., 2013, after James, 2007).Need differs from greed that means that 'one buys things, which one does not need in order to impress individuals for who one does not really care' .Greed supports production beyond needs, by which it ruins nature beyond needs, too, and is detrimental, in the longer terms, at least.Development of SR is, hence, aimed to be an innovation of human behavior toward systemic behavior by ethic of interdependence and resulting RH rather than abuse and end of survival.

Some conclusions
The theses, findings and suggestions briefed in Manifesto are still valid and even fortified in the current practice.The current global power-holders understand this reality and are playing a double game.On one hand they launched global documents supportive of promotion of SR as an honest and RH behavior; on the other hand (as one reads in public media): The members of the United Nations Security Council are the biggest producers and sellers of weapons; thus they cause wars (outside their own borders) to sell weapons (for currently more than ten wars) and refuse to accept victims (a hundred million displaced persons) of these wars in their countries, while blaming the not-involved countries for not accepting victims and risking the change of their traditional cultures (including the danger of their civil wars, or troubles at least).
Companies are legally entitled to sue countries that are careful about the natural environment and do not allow companies to exploit their nature and people.
Companies are legally allowed to make profit on toxic means for crops protection that actually causes bad health and medical and similar cost.
The part-time and similar non-permanent and unstable jobs are growing in number and reaching nearly 50% of all jobs globally.
The dangerous air and water quality kills millions and is not really reduced, because their reduction would hardly make profit on a short-term and narrow criteria that prevail over the ones of SR.
The European Union, e.g., is trying to become a sustainable and knowledge/innovation-based society; the concept includes SR.European Union stresses that SR-behavior reaches beyond matching the legal obligations, and so does ISO 26000; hence SR reflects organizations' additional efforts to meet expectations of numerous/all stake-holders (EU, 2011;ISO, 2010).European Union passed also several other documents that support development of SR.They only partially cover the real contemporary needs.The concept of sustainable future must replace the sustainable development (Ecimovic, editor, 2007;Ećimović, Mulej, 2014;Goerner et al, 2008;Hrast, et al, editors, 2015), for humankind to survive, by preventing the practice that development (especially the one put equal with growth) is found more important than sustainability and survival.