F.E.D. Dialectics: Part 3 of 9. Seldonian, Dialectical-Algebraic Derivation of the Successor System to Capitalism.

Full Title --

Part 3 of 9. Seldonian, Dialectical-Algebraic Derivation of Fundamental Features for the

Global Successor System to [Self-]Global[ized] Capitalism, using the

Dialectical ‘Meta-Equation’ that Models the ‘Meta-Evolution’ of

the Human-Social Relations of Production.

by [guest author] Hermes de Nemores.

Dear Reader,

Questions have recently been raised, in ‘www’ dialogues in which I participated, as to what Karl Seldon derived, and how he derived it, with regard to the global system of ‘Democratic Communism’, or of ‘Marxian Democracy’ -- of ‘Political-Economic Democracy’ -- as the possible global successor system to the global capitalist system, using the dialectical algebra that he discovered in 1996.

Such questions deserve an answer.

This blog-entry summarizes the third part of Seldon’s answer.

This text was extracted from writings of Hermes de Nemores, Secretary-General of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, and chairperson of its General Council, from his recent update to an introductory text, whose earlier version is available via --

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Primer.html

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Primer_files/4_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20B-1,%20v.2_OCR.pdf

[see, in particular, pages B-24 to B-37 in the latter].

-- and which I have adapted to the locally-available typography.

Enjoy this third part of Hermes de Nemores’ re-telling of Seldon’s amazing saga of discovery!

Regards,

Miguel

Example 5:_NQ Psychohistorical-Dialectical ‘Meta-Model’. The ‘Meta-Equation’ of Human-Social Relations of Production ‘Meta-Evolution’ [Part 3 of 9].

Historically Specific Commentary, Epoch t = 2. The 'Intra-Duality' of Use-Values -- of '''Goods''' / '''Gifts''' -- Drives the Emergence of the Content of a New Category of Social Relations of Production Human Socio-Ontology, that of Commodities. The development of increasing human capability to improve upon raw nature in crafting human products to a greater '''fitness''', or '''Appropriateness''', for human consumption intensifies an intra-communal economy of obligatory redistribution and mutual "gift"-reciprocation [i.e., of delayed/contingent exchange].

This exchange reproduces a form of inter-mutual '''insurance''', or communal '''social risk management''', against the variability and the vagaries of the ever-shifting hunting and horticultural circumstances for human societies, 'meta-societies' abjectly dominated daily by the conditions imposed by the «physis», that is, by the otherness of exo-human Nature.

Gradually, with the slow but also slowly-accelerating growth of the productive forces of these human communities, a higher 'population'/'frequency-of-encounter', and 'densification' of Goods-making activities, and of their products, is experienced.

The human-populated portions of the Terran planetary biosphere become an increasingly skills-prosperous, goods-enriched, artifacts-permeated, and use-value-wealthy world.

Use-value, in this context, increasingly develops also its own, specific 'self-duality', its own internal, 'ontological/existential self-contra-diction', or 'auto-contra-kinesis'; its own 'intra-duality', 'self-antithesis', or 'internal opposition', namely, that of 'direct use' vs. 'indirect-use'; 'immediate consumption use' versus 'mediate[d], exchange-use'.

This 'pleni-population' and 'densification' of 'Goods-«monads»' in human-social space is a manifestation of "the growth of the productive forces", i.e., of the growth of the productivity of human Goods-making activity, hence of the growth of the population-density of human-Goods artefacts.

Such growth can give rise, at first accidentally and unintentionally, to surfeits, to production -- or to production-capacity, production-potential -- in excess of local needs.

Such local excess production, or "surplus product", is, initially, not 'use-value', but, rather, 'non-use-value' and waste, or '''human-social entropy''', from the point of view of local consumption-use.

Yet it has the potential, through 'exchange-use', to procure other Goods from other localities -- other Goods which may also be in surfeit at their points of origin, within those other localities, so that the inhabitants of those other localities may also be willing to trade in it, but which are not in surfeit, given local needs and desires, with respect to local consumption-use for the first-mentioned locality.

Irregular, aperiodic such recoupings of potential waste-loss via exchange -- episodes of inter-communal barter as interlude to periods of non-contact or of inter-communal war -- may give rise to a growing appreciation of the benefits of bartering; to perceptions of what we today call '''comparative advantage'''.

This may lead to the 'frequentization', 'regularization', and eventual 'institution-alization' of production with the premeditated intent of barter-exchange, and, thereby, of proto-markets.

That is, this may lead to deliberate, intentional production of Goods that are in surplus supply locally -- i.e., surfeit with respect to the consumption needs of the producer or of the producer's local community.

That means production of Goods as Commodities-intended-for-barter, i.e., in quantities which would make most of the resulting product a 'socio-entropic' non-use-value for the local community, absent trade, but with the aim of converting that product into use-value-for-the-community through the mediation of trade in the form of the social praxis of barter exchange.

Thus, the content of the ‘socio-ontological category’ of Goods 'self-bifurcates' --

[G---> G<G> = G + q_GG = G + C]

-- in response to growing populations and human-social densities [physical-spatial concentrations] of Goods, resulting from the rising productivity -- the rising productive force -- of human labor, into a sum [with the underscore here indicating a qualitative, non-amalgamative sum]: Goods + Commodities --

G---> ~<G> = G x G = <G>² = <G + D<G> > = <G + q_GG> = <G + C> ¬{<,=,>} G.

The equation specific to our generic ‘meta-equation’, >-|-<t = <A>^{2^t}, for its epoch t = 2, is --

>-|-<₂ = <A>^{2^2}, = <A>⁴ = <A + G>² = <A + G> x <A + G> =

<<A + G + q_G_A> ~+~ C >

-- which means, among other things, that it remains possible for the earlier-arisen, A and G social relations/’praxes’, to persist throughout epoch t = 2, despite their ‘‘‘formal subsumption’’’, during this epoch, by the C relation/social praxis.

The epoch t = 2 new ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ term, q_G_A, signifies the ‘G-dominated’ dialectical synthesis of G and A.

This term might thus be interpreted [‘‘‘solved’’’] as connoting the “human social praxis transformative”, productivity-/productive-force-heightening entry of “Goods” into the domain of “raw Appropriation”, or of “Predation” -- e.g., originally bare-hands hunting now facilitated by hand-made, ‘hu-man-ually-fact-tured’ blades, spears, bows and arrows, etc.

Of course, during this same epoch, earlier-arisen practices surrounding, e.g., band, camp, and village Goods Gifts may become generalized into exploitative social relations of production, involving obligatory tributary “Gifts” of Goods, transferred, e.g., from conquered tribal chiefdoms to conquering tribal chiefdoms, and/or of obligatory “tithe”-like Gifts to temple priesthood bureaucracies for redistribution within, e.g., a city-state multi-tribal-chiefdom alliance.

We can summarize the models-progression so far via the following '[self-meta-]monad-ization chart' --

The overall specification for the models contained within the 'meta-model' that we are narrating here is --

Historically Specific Commentary, Epoch t = 3. The 'Intra-Duality' of Commodities Drives the Emergence of the content of the Social Relations of Production Human 'Socio-Ontological' Category of Monies. The ensuing regularization and institutionalization of Commodity-barter social relations and social praxes, together with the further gradual growth of the social forces of production, stimulated, in part, by production for barter exchange, accelerates the human-social 'densification' of barter activities.

Ever more commodity producers/consumers come to habitually depend upon barter as their main means of access to needed/desired products that they do not produce for themselves, as the barter "circulation"/proto-market praxis drives a deepening human species-wide specialization of labor/division of labor.

With this 'frequentization' or 'probabilization' of encounters with, and growing dependence upon, barter-relations, certain inconveniences, inefficiencies, and costs of the barter praxis come to the fore.

Memorizing a vast plethora of customary 'barter-prices', with a separate quantitative equivalence rule, exchange-ratio, exchange-relation, or exchange-'relatio' for each pair of Commodities, becomes ever more burdensome as the quantitative wealth of each given product-kind, and the diversity of new product-kinds, burgeons with the further growth of the productive forces, under the impetus of the 'barterist' '''Commodity-relation''' as social relation of production, in those social margins where it becomes both 'meristemal' and predominant.

Imagine your feelings about the need for you to wait, to hold your inventories until another comes to market willing and able to barter the exact item(s), in terms of quality, that you are seeking in exchange, and in the quantity of supply for which you are also seeking.

Imagine how costly in terms of your time, in terms of your patience, and in terms of the spoilage of your perishable inventories, etc., the barter-praxis must have been.

There is thus an immanent, growing need for manifestation of this evanescent, mentally-perceived 'exchange-[use-]value' of Commodities as a separate, generic, partially-tangible, physicalized/social-symbolic object.

The value, the utility, of a "general equivalent", of a Commodity acceptable in exchange for any other Commodity, a standard Commodity in quantities of which all other Commodities can express their exchange-ratios, their 'barter-prices', is the solution to these dilemmas of the barter-praxis which has been arrived at independently, again and again, by mutually-remote human societies on planet Earth.

This "general equivalent" Commodity role, adopting and then abandoning a whole sequence of candidate Commodities, often finally settles upon a metal, such as copper, then silver, then gold, given these metal’s properties of density, malleability, durability, uniformity-homogeneity, and scarcity.

The ‘‘‘Money-Commodity’’’ becomes the "general equivalent", and, eventually, the "universal equivalent", in the form of state-minted paper money; obligatory legal tender, and, later, in more advanced, even more ‘‘‘ephemeralized’’’, e.g., plastic, and electronic, forms.

Karl Marx provided a masterful systematic-dialectical derivation of the social-relations of production ‘socio-ontological category’ of money as an outgrowth of the three '''Value-forms''' of Commodity-value, with seamlessly-embedded historical-dialectical overtones, in both A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy and in Capital, volume I, respectively [e.g., per the editions by International Publishers -- [NY: 1970], pp. 28-46; [NY: 1967], pp. 35-70, respectively]. For further analysis of this systematic-dialectical transition, from Commodities to Money, see Example 10 herein.

The ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’ content of the human ‘socio-ontological category’ of Commodities therefore 'self-bifurcates' [C---> C<C> = C + q_CC = C + M], in response to growing populations and human-social ‘‘‘densities’’’ [physical-spatial concentrations] of Commodities, resulting from the rising productivity -- the rising productive force -- of human labor, into the non-reductionist sum, Commodities + Monies:

C---> ~<C> = C x C = <C>² = <C + D<C > > = <C + q_CC> = <C + M> ¬{<,=,>} C;

The equation specific to our generic ‘meta-equation’, >-|-<t = <A>^{2^t}, for its epoch t = 3, is --

>-|-<₃ = <A>^{2^3} = <A+G+q_G_A+C>² = <<A+G+q_G_A+C+q_C_A+q_C_G+q_C_G_A> ~+~ M>;

-- which means, among other things, that it remains possible for the earlier-appearing, A, G, q_G_A, and C possible social relations/’praxes’, to persist in existence, or to manifest again, throughout epoch t = 3, despite their ‘‘‘formal subsumption’’’, during this epoch, by the M relation/social praxis.

The epoch t = 3 new ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ terms, q_C_A, q_C_G, and q_C_G_A, signify the ‘C-dominated’ ‘dialectical-combinatoric’ partial and full dialectical syntheses of C with each of the two earlier-possible social relations of production, G and A, and with their ‘‘‘hybrid’’’/ synthesis, q_G_A.

These three new ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ terms may thus be interpreted [‘‘‘solved’’’] as connoting the “human social praxis transformative” impact of the C mode of “production for [barter-]exchange” upon its three earlier-possible social relation of production/social praxis predecessors in their thus-modified persistence in existence into the t = 3 epoch of the ‘‘‘real domination’’’ of the Commodity-barter relation, and of the ‘‘‘formal domination’’’ of Monies.

Note. The objects of human "economic" exchange and "exchange-value" are partly physical objects or physical [ev]entities, but they are also partly subjective, mental, memetic objects/[ev]entities; 'psyche-ic' and 'psyche-ological' objects, 'idea-objects' and 'emotional objects', symbolic/semantic objects, or 'cognitive objects'.

Their 'materiality' is thus partly a 'memetic' or mental, cognitive, 'ideative' materiality, and thus

they constitute a 'psychohistorical' materiality’, as well as a 'physical-historical' materiality, both belonging within the purview of F.E.D.’s 'Psychohistorical Materialism' paradigm.

Value is imputed to/projected onto physical objects by human [inter]subjectivities in ways which are both partly conscious and partly unconscious, but which, either way, are implicit in the objective outer behavior/actions/practices of human beings with respect to those, their value[d]-objects.

Thus, when we say that 'Money is a 'Meta-Commodity' made up out of, or '«aufheben»-containing', a heterogeneous multiplicity of Commodities', this is not meant in the same overwhelmingly physical and 'physical-spatial' way that is meant when we say that 'A molecule is a 'meta-atom' made up out of, or '«aufheben»-containing', a heterogeneous multiplicity of atoms'.

Money '«aufheben»-contains' and 'summarizes' the social manifold of Commodities symbolically, in the sense of presupposing them, their continual, reliable [re-]production -- their ongoing presence and availability in the market -- in the minds of its users, and also in the sense of a necessary inter-subjective belief/trust confidence/ reliance on the part of the human practitioners of “Commodity” and “Money” relations-of-production that the Money accepted by them in payment from others now will also be accepted from them as payment by others later, and with at least some degree of quantitative stability in the 'exchange-relatios' [ ≈ ratios / relations / «rations» / «rapports» /«verhaltnisse» ], or prices, of those later Money-mediated exchanges.

Thus, this kind of '«aufheben»-containment' attains the connotations of a '''memetic''' and ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’ materiality, not of any merely physical materiality alone.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Next: Part 4 of 9.