Sunday, November 20, 2011

Excerpts from Recent Dialogue on the Equitist Constitution

Dear Readers,

This post is to share an excerpt from a recent dialogue on the proposed "Equitist" -- i.e., the Democratic-Communist -- constitution.

Regards,

Miguel




Query. "Thank you for answering the question Miguel. I see that it's been thought out. I didn't look too deeply into it to compare it with what I've been advocating. The access by workers to tools of production is an area of commonality. I don't know what your organization's position on this is, but as far as I'm concerned the present tools of production as far as industrial plants and other equipment goes, do not need to be expropriated from the current owners. With technology advancing, industrial equipment is outmoded in just a short amount of time, so instead I would have the workers demanding upfront financing from the govt. for new up to date equipment."


Response. "To my understanding, what the Equitist Advocacy Group is advocating jibes with your statement, above.

Per the proposed Equitist Constitution, each self-organized collective of adult citizens -- each [candidate] free "associations of producers" -- with the aim of constituting themselves as a new Citizen Stewardship Equity Rights-based stewardship producers' cooperatives, would present their proposed business plan to one or more competing Social Banks [each one also a -- financial -- citizen stewardship cooperative].

If one or more of the Social Bank cooperatives found that proposed business plan to be sound -- likely to contribute a net profit, to be divided equally among all members [collective self-employees] of the Social Bank cooperative, and if the by-laws and practices of the candidate citizen stewardship cooperative that submitted that business plan were certified, by the Office of the Custodian of Social Property examiners, as meeting the constitutional and statutory norms and standards of collective democratic self-management internally, then that one of the approving Social Bank cooperatives -- the one that the new stewardship producers' cooperative selected -- would grant the funds required by that business plan, from out of the "grant-able" taxpayer-derived/social-rents-derived funds allocated to that Social Bank by the national/federal Office of the Custodian of Social Property, per the popularly-elected national legislative body.

The thus-inaugurated new stewardship cooperative would then apply part of those funds, per its business plan, to the fresh, new construction of the means of production required per that business plan.

The cooperative would have options to construct these means of production by itself, via the skills of its own members/citizen-stewards, to contract with the Office of the Custodian of Social Property to manage the construction of those means of production, per the specifications stated in the cooperative's business plan, to contract with another citizens stewardship cooperative, e.g., one specializing in the production of means of production of the kind(s) required per the business plan, to construct those means of production, or to contract with a private-capitalist firm [to the extent such would continue to be competitive with stewardship cooperatives, since member-managed [producers-managed] stewardship cooperatives would tend to treat their citizen-steward members -- i.e., themselves -- much better than private capitalist firms usually treat their waged and salaried workers] to construct the required means of production.

The Equitists are "anti-confiscationist" -- "anti-expropriationist" -- when it comes to private capital, and do not advocate the "il-legalization" of private capital ownership, but, on the contrary, advocate the constitutional legal requirement that the capital-owner-democratic-principles of capital equity stock "shareholder democracy" be adhered to, as stipulated in the very first section of the Equitist Constitution, and in all of the Equitists' writings that I have read.

However, I also gather that the Equitists believe that the private capital-relation / wage-labor-relation will tend to "wither away" over time, in the face of competition from democratically-self-managed citizen-stewardship producers' cooperatives -- producers' cooperatives that are granted means of production and start-up working funds by their governments even though their stewards/members typically do not own substantial private capital.

Efficiency in the construction and use of means of production would be encouraged by the social rent paid by stewardship cooperatives on each unit of means of production social property that they hold in stewardship, thus removing those socially-owned means of production from any other uses, by any other citizens/members of society.

Of course, stewardship producers' cooperatives, competing with one another for customers, will be motivated to innovate ever-improving means of production to reduce the social rents that they pay on those means of production, and to reduce the operating costs of those means of production, and their replacement costs when they wear out, and the labor-time requirements of the use of their means of production, so as to keep their prices for their output competitive with the output prices of other, competing stewardship cooperatives, and so as to reduce the number of work-hours their members must work per working-day, and so as to reduce "externalities" [e.g., pollution] production, etc..

Therefore, obsolescence depreciation of capital equipment would continue -- indeed, should accelerate.

However, the Equitist Constitution contains a mechanism to avert the adverse effects of this "techno-depreciation" -- i.e., the adverse effects of the "self-contracting value" moment of the self-contradiction of capital, by which the capitalist system is killing itself.

[I.e., a mechanism to avert the effects that form the "law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall", and that therefore drive the "enfetterment" of the further "growth of the social forces of production", e.g., by the vicious policies of the [state-]capitalist ruling class in reaction to techno-depreciation-driven fixed-capital write-offs and consequent tendential profit-rate-declines, therefore also driving the monstrous, totalitarian, "humanocidal" degeneration of that ruling class, with its ideologies of "capitalist anti-capitalism", and of "human anti-humanism", e.g., its "back to nature", "Small is Beautiful", "Zero Economic Growth", "people are pollution", "99% Population Reduction", Neo-Eugenicist perversion of the ecology movement, etc., etc.].

Regards,

Miguel



P. S. You referred to "your organization" in reference to myself and to the Equitist Advocacy Group in your reply. I AM following the activities of the Equitist Advocacy Group very closely, because their perspective jibes with mine very closely, so far. But I cannot claim ownership of, or membership in, the Equitist Advocacy Group. Indeed, the Equitist Advocacy Group's published internal operating principles prohibit their members from publicly claiming membership therein, so you will not find any member-in-good-standing of that Group publicly avowing their membership.

http://www.equitist.org/Equitist/InternalAffairs/InternalAffairs.htm "

No comments:

Post a Comment