Full Title: Part 1. of 4. The Heart and Soul of the Marxian Dialectic -- The Human-Societal 'Intra-Duality' of the Human-Social Forces of Production vis-a-vis the Human-Social Relations of Production.
This blog-entry contains my “improvement” of a text by the E.A.g. [Equitist Advocacy group], entitled “The Heart and Soul of Marxian Theory”.
I plan to provide my version of their text in the first two parts, and to then add two new sections, as a third and fourth part, setting forth some of the fruits of the latest research by the Foundation regarding the critical, immanent ‘extention’ of "the social forces of production", as the central concept of the Marxian dialectic, to that which we of F.E.D. term the ‘‘‘human-societal [self-]force of human-societal [[self-]re-]production’’’, in part via an immanent critique of the ideology-compromised science of Darwinian biology, resulting in F.E.D.’s theory of ‘Dialectical Meta-Darwinism’ as the positive fruition of that immanent critique.
Here are links to the E.A.g.’s original version --
This exegetical essay puts forward the thesis that the 'intra-duality', or 'self-duality' expressible as --
human-social forces of production # human-social relations of production
-- names the primary historically generic 'dialectical internal contradiction', or 'dialectical self-contradiction' driving the multi-epochal 'self-evolution', and 'self-meta-evolution', or 'self-revolution', of human society, with '#', as the doubly-slashed -- doubly-negated -- equals sign denoting the relationship of such immanent contradiction, and that the growth of the “human-social forces of production” is the ‘‘‘heart and soul’’’ of the Marxian theory of the causation of human-social evolution, of human-social revolution, and of the ultimate “lawful” historical emergence of ‘democratic communism’, i.e., of ‘Marxian Democracy’.
That is, this essay holds that, per Marx, the human-society self-induced growth of the“human-social forces of production” is the core cause of the historically observed — as of the predicted future — changes in the “human-social relations of production”, the human-social relations which mediate the self-reproduction, and the self-transformation, of human societies.
These include, especially, in order of their historical progression, “The Commodity-Relation”[Marx], “The Money-Relation” [Marx], and “The Capital-Relation” [Marx], and their predicted subsumption by the higher “social relation of production” of “The Associated Producers” [Marx].
The latter has clarified and concretized by Karl Seldon, based upon Marx’s own remarks regarding the connexion of joint-stock company shareholder democracy to ‘democratic communism’, in the Seldonian concept of ‘The Generalized Equity-Relation’.
This thesis is supported, in this essay, by extensive evidence from the published writings of Karl Marx, as well as from surviving writings by Marx left unpublished during his lifetime.
Part 1.: Hypothesis.
The Heart and Soul of the Marxian Dialectic --
“The Growth of the Social Forces of Production”
as Both Promoted by and Resisted by
the “Social Relations of Production”.
“The growth of the social forces of production” is the ‘‘‘heart and soul’’’ of the Marxian theory of the causation of human-social evolution, of human-social revolution, and of the “lawful” historical emergence of ‘democratic communism’, i.e., of ‘Marxian Democracy’.
It is the core of Marx’s explanation of the continual, cumulative changes within each historically-observed system of human social relations [of the transitory self-reproduction of that system of social relations of social reproduction].
It is also the core of Marx’s explanation of the historically-observed changes that constitute thetransition from each predecessor system of human social relations to its successor system of human social relations, characterized by a partial conservation of the predecessor ontology of social relations, as well as by an irruption of new, unprecedented social-relations ontology.
In Marxian theory, the growth of the human-social forces of production is also the primary project of human liberation.
Per Marx, it is already so within that human pre-history, a “prehistory” which ends with the end of the predominance of the “capital-relation”" as all-subsuming social relation of production, and it is so also, and even more so, within the predicted future, next epoch, that of the social relation of production of the freely and democratically “associated producers”, which Marx also calls “[democratic] communist society” [as opposed to capitalist society in general, and to the final, descendant-phase «species» of the «genos» of capitalist society, namely totalitarian, humanocidal state-capitalism].
However, this liberatory project, per Marx, cannot be a conscious, deliberate collective human project within the entire span of “human prehistory” — a prehistory which, per Marx, only ends with the emergence of humanity from its capital-value-form.
Before that emergence, this project of human liberation is part of [Hegel] “the cunning” of history; of the human species’ collective, or social, unconscious mind.
Specifically, under the rule of the capital-value-form, this project is not pursued, collectively, consciously as such, but only indirectly, in an ulterior manner, and under goals as prescribed by other, misleading, “ideological” forms of human consciousness.
This project is pursued, essentially, only in the form of the pursuit of transitory “super-profit” opportunities by the personifications of “the capital-relation”, via their effort to increase the productivity of their wage-labor inputs so as to reduce the unit cost of their commodity output, and, thereby, to (1) undercut their competitors’ pricing, on equivalent output, at the same rate of profit, or (2) to meet their competitors’ prices, at a higher rate of profit, or (3) some intermediate combination of the two forgoing strategy-extremes.
Upon critical, deeper analysis, this is revealed, by Marx, to be the de facto pursuit of rising rates of “relative surplus-value”, though this is not perceived as such in the typical consciousness of the agents/personifications of “the capital-relation”.
For individuals outside the class of capital-personification, e.g., for wagéd and salaried workers, the development of what they tend, in the present-day ideological context, to “hear” from the phrase “the productive forces” — namely, so-called “technology” — and the choice of “technology”, appear to be an alien affair, an affair of capital and its engineering, etc., employees, from which the wage-working population is excluded.
Such “technology” may even appear, in the eyes of superficial, ‘impressionistic empiricists’, in an illusory, ‘real subjects/real objects’-inverted manner, as an autonomous development, outside of any human-social intension or control: “technology” as the [pseudo-]subject, or [pseudo-]agent, of human history.
The associated feeling of estrangement with respect to such “technology” on the part of workers is a ‘psycho-ideological vulnerability’ produced in them by their very ‘capital-relation’ experience itself.
That feeling can be exploited in the psychological/ideological class-warfare operations of ‘The Anti-Marxian Marxians’.
They are the capitalist ruling class’s ruling faction, in the sub-epoch of the epoch of capital that we call ‘the descendance phase of the capitalist system’.
This ruling faction is hell-bent on “saving itself” from Marx’s predicted outcome of the growth of the human-society-productive forces under “the capital-relation” — on saving its power to despotically rule over the rest of global society.
It plans to do so by engineering, first, a termination, and, thereafter, a reversal, of the historical “growth of the productive forces”, together with all of the catastrophic, ‘multi-genocidal’, tendentially ‘‘‘humanocidal’’’ contraction of global human-societal self-reproduction that such a reversal of the growth of the productive forces entails.
That feeling of estrangement on the part of workers is also, in part, well-founded.
It is well-founded, but not as a ‘‘‘Neo-Luddite’’’ urge to the abstract negation of “technology” as “technology” is shaped and deformed by the imperatives of “the capital-relation” and the power-and profit-pursuing ruling-class “capital-praxis”.
It is well-founded as an urge to the immanent, «aufheben», dialectical negation of that “technology”: the creation of a technological social infrastructure fit for use by “the associated producers” [Marx], in their expanded reproduction of an actualized human[e] society, therebyending human pre-history, and beginning the actual[ized] history of humanity as such.
Within “the capital-relation”, within the epoch of the real domination of the human [re-]production-process by capital, “technology” develops and accumulates physically as “fixed capital” — as an objectification and materialization of THE CAPITAL-RELATION itself: “technology as capital”; “capital as a technology”.
The “fixed capital” component of “constant capital” [Marx] develops as an instrument for the subjugation of workers, reduced to “variable capital” [Marx], and with an imperative toward the production of ever escalating and ever accumulating “pollution”, etc., “externalities”, against which “the capital relation” — because of the inherent failure of “market-forces” to effectively regulate “externalities”, a failure inherent in “the capital-relation” — provides no immanent protection.
This “technology” therefore develops in a manner which is disfigured, deformed, and perverted with respect to the designs of a “democratic-communist”, e.g., of an actually humanist, actually human[e] Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, which means a human polity that consciously aims at the production of SOCIAL use-value / SOCIAL negentropy.
Only within an emergent post-capitalist, post-pre-historic, ‘democratic-communist society’ — i.e., only within the social relations of society self-re-production of a Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY — can the expansion of humanity's self-expansive, self-creative, self-reproductive powers become a conscious project of humanity — a matter of democratic deliberation and of collective-conscious design.
Only then can we ourselves become our works of art.
Only then can humanity become its own work, of art.
Only then will the «kosmos» be our canvas.