F.E.D. Dialectics

Part II. B.: Systematic-Dialectics Example 2. – The Opening Triad of Marx’s «Kapital».

2011-12-12T07:28:00.001-08:00

Part II. B.: Intuitive Account of the F.E.D. Generic Dialectics Algorithm --

Systematic-Dialectics Example 2. – The Opening Triad of Marx’s «Kapital».

Dear Readers,

Part II. B.: Systematic-Dialectics Example 2. – The Opening Triad of Marx’s «Kapital».

Introduction: [All references to Marx’s Capital, volume I, herein refer to the edition published originally in 1967 by International Publishers, Inc., New York, and, specifically, to their 1973 fifth printing of that edition. Throughout this exposition, it will be helpful to have your copies of the volumes of Marx's Capital handy, and open to the pages being referenced in the various passages below.].

In his Preface to the First German edition of Capital, volume I, Marx wrote as follows regarding the beginning category, or «arché» category, of his method of presentation of his systematic treatise on the human-social historical totality known as “capitalist society” [emphasis added by M.D.] –

“Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences.

To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty.

That which concerns more especially the analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value, I have, as much as it was possible, popularised.

The [M.D.: elementary] value-form, whose fully-developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple.

Nevertheless , the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it, whilst, on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation.

Why?

Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body.

But in bourgeois society the commodity-form of the product of labour – or the [M.D.: elementary] value-form of the commodity – is the economic cell form.

To the superficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon minutiæ.

It does in fact deal with minutiæ, but they are of the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy.

With the exception of the section on the value-form, therefore, this volume cannot stand accused on the score of difficulty.

I pre-suppose, of course, a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself.”

[Karl Marx, Capital, volume I, originally published 1867, International Publishers [New York: 1967], pp. 7-8, emphasis added by M.D.].

I have previously, in this blog, presented dialectical models of the systematic dialectic of the three volumes of Marx’s Capital that take the more superficial of the two «arché» categories that Marx identifies in the “prefatory” passage quoted above – “...the commodity-form of the product of labour...” -- to which the title of the first Chapter of Capital, volume I answers – “CHAPTER I. – Commodities” – and which generate minimally-complete dialectical model reconstructions of Marx’s three-volume argument, reconstructions belonging to the following dialectical categories-sum, dialectical categorial-progression kind --

C + M + qMC + K + qKC + qKM + qKMC + S

-- or, i.e. --

Commodities + Monies +

Monies-Mediated Circulations of Commodities +

«Kapitals» +

Commodities-«Kapitals» + Monies-«Kapitals» +

Circulations of the Total Social «Kapital» +

Social[ist] Revolution

-- covering, "connotatively" and heuristically, the following portions of the [tables-of-]contents of Marx’s three volumes --

VOLUME I...The Productions-Process of Capitals
PART I...COMMODITIES AND MONEY
CHAPTER I. – Commodities, &
CHAPTER III. – Money, or the Circulation of Commodities, &

PART II...THE TRANSFORMATION OF MONEY INTO CAPITAL
CHAPTER IV. -- The General Formula for Capital
CHAPTER V. – Contradictions in the General Formula for Capital

&

VOLUME II...The Circulations-Process of Capitals
PART I...THE METAMORPHOSES OF CAPITAL AND THEIR CIRCUITS
CHAPTER III. – The Circuit of Commodity-Capital, &
CHAPTER I. – The Circuit of Money-Capital, &

PART III...THE...CIRCULATION OF THE AGGREGATE SOCIAL CAPITAL

&

VOLUME III...The Whole-Process of Capitalist Production
PART V......INTEREST-BEARING CAPITAL
CHAPTER XXVII. – The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production
/
VOLUME I...The Productions-Process of Capitals
PART VIII...THE SO-CALLED PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION
CHAPTER XXXII. – Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation.

Now, it has been found – and not unexpectedly so -- in F.E.D.’s research, that dialectical models beginning with this more superficial of the two «arché» categories that Marx identifies in the “prefatory” passage quoted above – “...the commodity-form of the product of labour...” – cannot capture, in such connotative dialectical models, the [table-of-]contents of Marx’s three volumes of «Das Kapital» as deeply as, or in as much in detail as, can dialectical models that begin from the deeper of those two «arché» categories – namely, that begin from the elementary form of commodity value: "-- ...the value-form of the commodity --".

We will illustrate such a dialectical model of the contents of Marx’s «Das Kapital», in this blog entry, but only for the first three categories in the categorial [self-]expansion, or [self-]progression, of this elementary value-form «arché». [We do plan, in a subsequent blog entry, to present a progression of F.E.D. dialectical models of the contents of the three volumes of Marx’s Capital, with each successor dialectical model beginning from a deeper «arché» than did its predecessor dialectical models, and, thereby, achieving a fuller, more detailed replication of, capturing of, or reproduction of, the tables-of-contents of the multiple volumes of Marx’s master-treatise.].

In terms of Marx’s table of contents for Capital, volume I, this deeper initial triad encompasses the following three sections –

VOLUME I...The Productions-Process of Capitals
PART I...COMMODITIES AND MONEY
CHAPTER I. – Commodities
Section 3. – The Form of Value or Exchange-Value
A. Elementary or Accidental Form of Value
B. Total or Expanded Form of Value
C. The General Form of Value.

Do the detailed content-characteristics of Marx’s Elementary Value-Form, of his Expanded Value-Form, and of his General Value-Form categories exhibit the detailed Generic characteristics claimed by F.E.D. to be universal for the first triads of virtually all «species» of dialectical progressions?

YES !!!

They do so to a far fuller extent than, I think, most would expect, given that Marx could not have had in mind the exact, mathematically-expressed universal algorithm for dialectic that F.E.D. has discovered, and axiomatized, when he organized and wrote the material of «Das Kapital» [although Marx clearly does have some kind of general pattern, procedure, and/or “generic algorithm” for dialectic in mind – albeit a purely-qualitative, non-mathematically-formulated such “generic algorithm”, and his writings often assert to that effect, e.g., in his correspondence, in the «Grundrisse», and in «Das Kapital» itself.].

That is, Marx’s first three “commodity value-form” categories -- which are but three different root, abstract, generic expressions for exchange-relations, i.e., for the human-social relations of production within the "super-«genos»" of exchange-value-based human-social relations of production -- conform, in amazing detail, to F.E.D.’s generic first triad characteristics of –

Thesis + Meta-Thesis + Syn-Thesis

-- or --

Posit + Meta-Posit + Com-Posit

-- or --

«Arché» + Meta-«Arché» + Syn-«Arché».

In particular, each unit, or «monad», or element of the Expanded Form of Value «arithmos», or assemblage of units, is – quite precisely – a concrete-«aufheben» “meta-«monad»-ization, or “meta-unit-ization”, of some or all of the units, or elements, or «monads» of the «arithmos», or assemblage of units, of the Elementary Form of Value, as we shall demonstrate, in detail, below!!!

Moreover, each unit, or «monad», or element of the General Form of Value «arithmos» is a hybrid unit, hybrid «monad», or hybrid element of an Expanded Form of Value «arithmos»’s unit, «monad», or element, together with, or combined with, or “composited with” an Elementary Form of Value «arithmos»’s unit, «monad», or element, such that “half” of each General Form of Value «arithmos»’s unit, «monad», or element [the Relative "form of value" pole] comes from one of the Expanded Form of Value «arithmos»’s units', «monads»'s, or elements' formats, and such that the other “half” of each General Form of Value «arithmos»’s unit, «monad», or element [the Equivalent "form of value" pole] comes from one of the Elementary Form of Value «arithmos»’s units', «monads»'s, or elements' formats, as we shall also show below!!!

Finally, note that each hybrid unit, hybrid «monad», or hybrid element of the General Form of Value's «arithmos», or assemblage of units, is a “horizontal inversion negation” of a unit, «monad», or element of the Expanded Form of Value «arithmos», or assemblage of units, as also demonstrated in the illustrations presented below.

Triad:

A & B & C =

Elementary Value-Form &

Expanded Value-Form &

General Value-Form.

Movement:

Elementary Value-Form --->

Elementary Value-Form & Expanded Value-Form --->

Elementary Value-Form & Expanded Value-Form & General Value-Form.

Definitions:

A....Elementary Value-Form. Marx writes of this form: “The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form. Its analysis, therefore, is our real difficulty. Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat), evidently play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form. The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually dependent and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually exclusive, antagonistic extremes – i.e., poles of the same expression.” [ibid., p. 48, emphasis added by M.D.].

The “elementary”, or “accidental”, or “isolated” [Marx] form of commodity [ultimately, commodity-capital-]value is the simplest, or least complex -- and the most abstract, or least concrete, least “determinate”, or least “determinations-rich” -- category, or «arithmos» of «monads» [“assemblage of units”], in which the dialectical polarity -- or “intra-duality”, to use F.E.D.’s term -- of use-value versus exchange-value is still preserved as explicit, and, therefore, in which the historical / diachronic, and also present / synchronic, root of the Capital-relation as predominant, “real-subsuming” social relation of production is still explicitly evident, i.e., such that any further abstraction, or any further simplification, would submerge/repress this "self-dual" root into “implicitude”, so that the elementary form of value «arithmos», or category, is the simplest, most abstract such category that is still suitable to serve as the «arché»-category, or beginning-category, of a systematic-dialectical model -- or theoretical reconstruction/reproduction and explanation -- of the self-reproductive dynamics, and of the social-reproduction process, of the capitals-system [only], including its historical limits as well, on both its past and its future time-sides -- because the [w]hol[e] of the capitals-system, i.e., of its “essence-ial”, core “internal contradiction”, is still “holographically” / holonomically explicitly-enough “contained” in the elementary value-form as arché» category / «arithmos».

Each unit, or «monad», or element of the elementary value-form «arithmos», or assemblage, or category, can be represented as a set of exchange-value-vs.-use-value, or relative-value-pole-vs.-equivalent-value-pole ‘polads’, of ‘polads’ expressed via either the “algebraical”, or “variable” forms, or of the “constant”, or “arithmetical” forms, as given by Marx [Capital, volume I, ibid., p. 48] –

“x commodity A = y commodity B, or
.x commodity A is worth y commodity B.

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or
20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat.”

-- or, in F.E.D. "algebraical" shorthand --

xA = yB

-- wherein x and y are quantifier variables standing for counts of the standard units of commodity A and of commodity B, respectively -- of the quantity of units of A -- x -- needed to be able to exchange them directly for, i.e. to have the equivalent value to, a quantity of exactly y units of commodity B – and wherein A and B are what F.E.D. terms “quantifiable ontological-category-as-unit qualifier variables” – i.e., qualitative algebraic variables standing for “quantifiable kind-of-commodity category-qualifiers”[e.g., in the case of B = coat], or for standard, implicltly-combined, "qualitative-multiplication"-combined, metrical-unit-qualifier “of”, or “times”, kind-of-commodity category-as-unit-qualifier variables [e.g., in the case of A = yards of linen = yards “times” linen].

The contents of the category, i.e., of the «arithmos» of «monads», of the elementary form of value, can be rendered explicitly, using the examples of the truncated universe[-of-discourse] of commodities that Marx explicitly exemplifies in Section 3. of volume I of Capital, using them as a set of elements, as follows –

The Elementary Value-Form, as “intension”, corresponds to the following 42-element set of ‘polad’ «monads», or elements, as [a truncated example of] its “extension”, using only Marx’s seven-commodity “exemplificatory” universe of discourse from Ch. I., Sec. 3, of Capital I –

{[20 yds. linen = 1 coat],.............[1 coat = 20 yds. linen],..[10 lbs. tea = 20 yds. linen],...[40 lbs. coffee = 20 yds. linen],
...[20 yds. linen = 10 lbs. tea],......[1 coat = 10 lbs. tea],......[10 lbs. tea = 1 coat],..............[40 lbs. coffee = 1 coat],
...[20 yds. linen = 40 lbs. coffee],.[1 coat = 40 lbs. coffee],.[10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee],.[40 lbs. coffee = 10 lbs. tea],
...[20 yds. linen = 1 qr. corn],.......[1 coat = 1 qr. corn],.......[10 lbs. tea = 1 qr. corn],........[40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. corn],
...[20 yds. linen = 2 oz. gold],.......[1 coat = 2 oz. gold],......[10 lbs. tea = 2 oz. gold],........[40 lbs. coffee = 2 oz. gold],
...[20 yds. linen = ½ ton iron],......[1 coat = ½ ton iron],......[10 lbs. tea = ½ ton iron],.......[40 lbs. coffee = ½ ton iron],

...[1 qr. corn = 20 yds. linen],
...[1 qr. corn = 1 coat],
...[1 qr. corn = 10 lbs. tea],
...[1 qr. corn = 40 lbs. coffee],
...[1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold],
...[1 qr. corn = ½ ton iron],

...[2 oz. gold = 20 yds. linen],..[½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen],
...[2 oz. gold = 1 coat],.............[½ ton iron = 1 coat],
...[2 oz. gold = 10 lbs. tea],......[½ ton iron = 10 lbs. tea],
...[2 oz. gold = 40 lbs. coffee],.[½ ton iron = 40 lbs. coffee],
...[2 oz. gold = 1 qr. corn],.......[½ ton iron = 1 qr. corn],
...[2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron],......[½ ton iron = 2 oz. gold] }

-- using Marx’s “arithmetical” or “constant(s)” form, or, using F.E.D.’s abbreviation of Marx’s “algebraical” or “variables(s)” form, to --

{[zA = uB],..[uB = zA],..[vC = zA],..[wD = zA],..[xE = zA],..[yF = zA],..[aG = zA],
...[zA = vC],..[uB = vC],..[vC = uB],..[wD = uB],..[xE = uB],.[yF = uB],..[aG = uB],
...[zA = wD],.[uB = wD],.[vC = wD],.[wD = vC],..[xE = vC],.[yF = vC],..[aG = vC],
...[zA = xE],..[uB = xE],..[vC = xE],...[wD = xE],..[xE = wD],.[yF = wD],.[aG = wD],
...[zA = yF],..[uB = yF],..[vC = yF],...[wD = yF],..[xE = yF],..[yF = xE],...[aG = xE],
...[zA = aG],..[uB = aG],..[vC = aG],..[wD = aG],..[xE = aG],..[yF = aG],..[aG = yF]}

B. Expanded Value-Form. Marx “notates” this value-form as follows –

“z Com. A = u Com. B or = v Com. C or = w Com. D or = x Com. E or = &c.

(20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs. tea or = 40 lbs. coffee or = 1 quarter corn or = 2 ounces gold or = ½ ton iron or = &c.)”

-- or, in F.E.D. shorthand --

zA = uB = vC = wD = xE = yF = aG

-- and describes it thusly [ibid., pp. 62-63] --

“The value of a single commodity, the linen, for example, is now expressed in terms of numberless other elements of the world of commodities. Every other commodity now becomes a mirror of the linen’s value. It is thus that, for the first time, this value shows itself in its true light as a congelation of undifferentiated human labour. For the labour that creates it, now stands expressly revealed, as labour that ranks equally with every other sort of human labour, no matter what its form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, &c., and no matter, therefore, whether it is realized in coats, corn, iron, or gold. The linen, by virtue of the form of its value, now stands in a[n exchange-value – M.D.] social relation, no longer with only one [other – M.D.] kind of commodity, but with the whole world of commodities[, itself excepted – M.D.]. As a commodity, it is a citizen of that world. At the same time, the interminable series of value equations implies, that as regards the value of a commodity, it is a matter on indifference under what particular form, or kind, of use-value it appears.”

-- which, note well, also indicates that the units, «monads», or elements of the Expanded Form of Value «arithmos» / category, are, precisely, “meta-units”, “meta-«monads»”, or “meta-elements” of the units, «monads», or elements of the Elementary Form of Value, so that the «arithmos» / category of the “Expanded Value-Form” is a “meta-«arithmos»”, “meta-set”, or “meta-category” of the “Elementary Value-Form”«arithmos» / category / set.

The contents of the “meta-category”, i.e., of the “meta-«arithmos»” of “meta-«monads»”, of the expanded form of value, can be rendered explicitly, using the examples of the truncated universe[-of-discourse] of commodities that Marx explicitly exemplifies in Section 3. of volume I of Capital, as a “meta-set” of “meta-elements”, as follows –

The Expanded Value-Form, as “intension”, corresponds to the following 7-element set of ‘polad’ elements, as [a truncated example of] its “extension”, using only Marx’s seven-commodity “exemplificatory” universe of discourse –

{[20 yds. linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron],
...[1 coat = 10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen],
...[10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen = 1 coat],
...[40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs. tea],
...[1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee],
...[2 oz. gold = ½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. Corn],
...[½ ton iron = 20 yds. linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs. tea = 40 lbs. coffee = 1 qr. corn = 2 oz. gold]}

-- using Marx’s “arithmetical” or “constant(s)” form, or, using F.E.D.’s abbreviation of Marx’s “algebraical” or “variables(s)” form, to --

{[zA = uB = vC = wD = xE = yF = aG],
...[uB = vC = wD = xE = yF = aG = zA],
...[vC = wD = xE = yF = aG = zA = uB],
...[wD = xE = yF = aG = zA = uB = vC],
...[xE = yF = aG = zA = uB = vC = wD],
...[yF = aG = zA = uB = vC = wD = xE],
...[aG = zA = uB = vC = wD = xE = yF]}

-- which can be equivalently rendered as --

{[zA = uB, or (zA ) = vC, or (zA ) = wD, or (zA ) = xE, or (zA ) = yF, or (zA ) = aG],
...[uB = vC, or (uB) = wD, or (uB) = xE, or (uB) = yF, or (uB) = aG, or (uB) = zA],
...[vC = wD, or (vC) = xE, or (vC) = yF, or (vC) = aG, or (vC) = zA, or (vC) = uB],
...[wD = xE, or (wD) = yF, or (wD) = aG, or (wD) = zA, or (wD) = uB, or (wD) = vC],
...[xE = yF, or (xE) = aG, or (xE) = zA, or (xE) = uB, or (xE) = vC, or (xE) = wD],
...[yF = aG, or (yF) = zA, or (yF) = uB, or (yF) = vC, or (yF) = wD, or (yF) = xE],
...[aG = zA, or (aG) = uB, or (aG) = vC, or (aG) = wD, or (aG)= xE, or (aG) = yF]}

-- revealing more clearly how each element of the Expanded Form of Commodity Value set is made out of six of the 'polad' elements of the Elementary Form of Commodity Value set.

Note that, in the above, each unit, or «monad», or element of the above-rendered set, or «arithmos», for the Expanded Form of Commodity Value category is a META- Elementary Form of Commodity Value -unit, -«monad», or -element.

That is, each "one" is a META-"one", or META-unit, or META-«monad», or META-element, of the "ones", or units, or «monads», or elements of the set, or «arithmos», of the Elementary Form of Commodity Value category, each "one" being made up out of the heterogeneous multiplicity of the "ones", or units, or «monads», or elements of the set, or «arithmos», of the Elementary Form of Commodity Value category, and hence the Expanded Form of Commodity Value «arithmos» / category is a META-«arithmos», or META-set, of the Elementary Form of Commodity Value category / «arithmos», or set.

Thus, each unit, each «monad», or each element of the Expanded Form of Commodity Value category / «arithmos», is an «aufheben» determinate change ["determinate negation"] of, a conservation of, and a scope-/scale-elevation of, the units, «monads», or elements of the Elementary Form of Commodity Value category / «arithmos».

Thus the generic expectations of the F.E.D. generic algorithm for dialectic are exhaustively fulfilled in this special case -- in this special algorithm for the opening triad of the systematic-dialectical categorial progression of Marx's Capital, in which the whole of the rest of the content of Marx's Capital is implicitly, holographically, holonomically, immanently "contained", for those who at least "chaotically" [Marx], "phenomenologically" experience/empirically know the capitals-system, and from which the rest of the totality of that immanent content of Marx's Capital is systematically, dialectically derived therein.

This “meta-«monad»-ic” character of the Expanded Value-Form «monads», relative to the Elementary Value-Form «monads», is even more visibly apparent in the following rendering, which applies the principle of the rendering that Marx uses for the «monads» of the General Value-Form – Value-Form C. – which are “horizontal inversion negations” of the «monads» of the Expanded Value-Form, Value-Form B., viz. –

.............................................../ 1 coat
............................................./ 10 lbs. of tea
.........................................../ 40 lbs. of coffee
........................................./1 quarter of corn
20 yards of linen....=...<
.........................................\2 ounces of gold
..........................................\ ½ ton of iron
...........................................\ x com. A., etc.

-- or, in F.E.D. shorthand --

......................../ uB
...................../ vC
.................../ wD
................./ xE
zA..=..<
................\ yF
.................\ aG
..................\ bH

-- so that the seven elements of the restricted Expanded Value-Form set are rendered, after this fashion, in Marx’s “algebraical”, or “variables-only”, mode, using the F.E.D. shorthand, as --

{....................../ uB
....................../ vC
..................../ wD
................../ xE
[zA..=..<
..................\ yF
...................\ aG],

........................./ zA
....................../ vC
.................../ wD
................./ xE
[uB..=..<
.................\ yF
..................\ aG],

......................../ zA
...................../ uB
.................../ wD
................./ xE
[vC..=..<
.................\ yF
..................\ aG],

.........................../ zA
......................../ uB
...................../ vC
.................../ xE
[wD..=..<
..................\ yF
...................\ aG],

........................../ zA
......................./ uB
..................../ vC
................../ wD
[xE..=..<
..................\ yF
...................\ aG],

..................../ zA
................./ uB
............../ vC
............/ wD
[yF..=..<
............\ xE
..............\ aG],

........................../ zA
......................./ uB
..................../ vC
................../ wD
[aG..=..<
..................\ xE
....................\ yF] }

-- or, after this same fashion, in Marx’s “arithmetical” or “constants-only” mode, as --

{............................................/ 1 coat
.............. ............................./ 10 lbs. of tea
............ ............................/ 40 lbs. of coffee
................ ....................../1 quarter of corn
[20 yards of linen..=..<
......... .............................\2 ounces of gold
............... .........................\ ½ ton of iron],

......................................./ 20 yards of linen
..................................../ 10 lbs. of tea
................................./ 40 lbs. of coffee
.............................../1 quarter of corn
[1 coat.......=.......<
...............................\2 ounces of gold
................................\ ½ ton of iron],

......................................../ 20 yards of linen
...................................../ 1 coat
................................../ 40 lbs. of coffee
................................/1 quarter of corn
[10 lbs. of tea..=..<
.................................\2 ounces of gold
...................................\ ½ ton of iron],

............................................../ 20 yards of linen
.........................................../ 1 coat
......................................../ 10 lbs. of tea
....................................../1 quarter of corn
[40 lbs. of coffee..=..<
......................................\2 ounces of gold
........................................\ ½ ton of iron],

............................................../ 20 yards of linen
.........................................../ 1 coat
......................................../ 10 lbs. of tea
....................................../40 lbs. of coffee
[1 quarter of corn..=..<
......................................\2 ounces of gold
........................................\ ½ ton of iron],

............................................../ 20 yards of linen
.........................................../ 1 coat
......................................../ 10 lbs. of tea
....................................../40 lbs. of coffee
[2 ounces of gold..=..<
......................................\1 quarter of corn
........................................\ ½ ton of iron],

........................................./ 20 yards of linen
....................................../ 1 coat
.................................../ 10 lbs. of tea
................................./40 lbs. of coffee
[½ ton of iron..=..<
.................................\1 quarter of corn
...................................\ 2 ounces of gold] }

C. General Value-Form. Marx “notates” this value-form as follows [ibid., p. 65] –

“1 coat.....................\

10 lbs. of tea..........\

40 lbs. of coffee....\

1 quarter of corn..\

................................................>...=...20 yards of linen

2 ounces of gold../

½ ton of iron......./

x com. A., etc./”

-- or, in F.E.D. shorthand --

uB........\

vC...........\

wD..........\

xE...............\

...........................>...=...zA

yF................/

aG............/

bH......../

-- and Marx describes the General Value-Form, and the dialectical transition to the General Value-Form from the Expanded Value-Form, and the subsequent dialectical transition from the General Value-Form to the Money Value-Form, in the following, exceedingly brilliant, way [ibid., pp. 64-70, emphasis added by M.D.] --

“3. Defects of the Total or Expanded form of value. In the first place, the relative expression of value is incomplete because the series representing it is interminable. The chain of which each equation of value is a link, is liable at any moment to be lengthened by each new kind of commodity that comes into existence and furnishes [it with – M.D.] the material for a fresh expression of [its – M.D.] value.

In the second place, it is a many-coloured mosaic of disparate and independent expressions of value.

And lastly, if, as must be the case, the relative value of each commodity in turn, becomes expressed in this expanded form, we get for each of them a relative value-form, different in every case, and consisting of an interminable series of expressions of value.

The defects of the expanded relative value form are reflected in the corresponding equivalent form.

Since the bodily form of each single commodity is one particular equivalent form amongst numberless others, we have, on the whole, nothing but fragmentary equivalent forms, each excluding the others.

In the same way, also, the special, concrete, useful kind of labour embodied in each particular equivalent, is presented only as a particular kind of labour, and therefore not as an exhaustive representative of human labour generally.

The latter, indeed, gains adequate manifestation in the totality of its manifold, particular, concrete forms. But, in that case, its expression in an [M.D.: practically-]infinite series is ever incomplete and deficient in unity.

The expanded relative value-form is, however, nothing but the sum of the elementary relative expressions or equations of the first kind, such as

..........................................................20 yards of linen..=..1 coat

..........................................................20 yards of linen..=..10 lbs. of tea, etc.

Each of these implies the corresponding inverted equation,

............................................................1 coat..=..20 yards of linen

..........................................................10 lbs. of tea..=..20 yards of linen, etc.

In fact, when a person exchanges his linen for many other commodities, and thus expresses its value in a series of other commodities, it necessarily follows, that the various owners of the latter exchange them for the linen, and consequently express the value of their various commodities in one and the same third commodity, the linen. If then, we reverse the series, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lbs. of tea, etc., that is to say, if we give expression to the converse relation already implied in the series, we get,

...........................................................C. The General form of value

..1 coat......................\

10 lbs. of tea...........\

40 lbs. of coffee.....\

.. 1 quarter of corn...\

.................................................>...=...20 yards of linen

...2 ounces of gold.../

...½ ton of iron......../

...x com. A., etc./

1. The altered character of the form of value

All commodities now express their value (1) in an elementary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, because in one and the same commodity. This form of value is elementary and the same for all, therefore general.

. . .

[M.D.: This] universal equivalent form is a form of value in general.

It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity.

On the other hand, if a commodity be found to have assumed the universal equivalent form (form C), this is only because and in so far as it has been excluded from the rest of all other commodities as their equivalent, and that by their own act.

And from the moment that this exclusion becomes finally restricted to one particular commodity, from that moment only, the general form of relative value of the world of commodities obtains real consistence and general social validity.

The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money-commodity, or serves as money.

It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent.

Amongst the commodities which, in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and in form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular -- namely, gold.

If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get,

...........................................................D. The Money-form

..1 coat.........................=......\

10 lbs. of tea............=........\

40 lbs. of coffee.....=........\

.. 1 quarter of corn.=..........\

..............................................................>....2 ounces of gold

20 yards of linen....=........./

...½ ton of iron..........= ...../

...x com. A., etc. .....= ./

. . .

The difficulty in forming a concept of the money-form, consists in comprehending the universal equivalent form, and as a necessary corollary, the general form of value, form C.

The latter is deducible from form B, the expanded form of value, the essential component element of which, we saw, is form A, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or x commodity A = y commodity B.

The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money-form.”

The seven elements of the restricted General Value-Form set are rendered, in Marx’s “algebraical”, or “variables-only”, mode, using the F.E.D. shorthand, as --

{

[uB........\

...vC.........\

...wD..........\

...xE...............\

...........................>...=...zA],

...yF.............../

...aG.........../

[zA........\

...vC.........\

...wD..........\

...xE...............\

..........................>...=...uB],

...yF.............../

...aG.........../

[zA..........\

...uB..........\

...wD..........\

...xE...............\

..........................>...=...vC],

...yF.............../

...aG.........../

[zA.........\

...uB..........\

...vC...........\

...xE...............\

..........................>...=...wD],

...yF.............../

...aG.........../

[zA.........\

...uB..........\

...vC...........\

...wD.............\

.........................>...=...xE],

...yF.............../

...aG.........../

[zA..........\

...uB...........\

...vC.............\

...wD..............\

...........................>...=...yF],

...xE.............../

...aG.........../

[zA........\

...uB...........\

...vC.............\

...wD..............\

...........................>...=...aG]

...xE................./

...yF............../

}

-- or, after this same fashion, in Marx’s “arithmetical” or “constants-only” mode, as --

{

[1 coat......................\

10 lbs. of tea...........\

40 lbs. of coffee.....\

.. 1 quarter of corn...\

.................................................>...=...20 yards of linen],

...2 ounces of gold.../

...½ ton of iron......../

[20 yards of linen....\

..10 lbs. of tea................\

..40 lbs. of coffee..........\

..1 quarter of corn..........\

......................................................>...=...1 coat],

..2 ounces of gold........./

...½ ton of iron............/

[20 yards of linen....\

.....1 coat........................ .....\

..40 lbs. of coffee..........\

..1 quarter of corn...........\

........................................................>...=...10 lbs. of tea],

..2 ounces of gold........../

...½ ton of iron............./

[20 yards of linen....\

.....1 coat........................ .....\

..10 lbs. of tea...................\

.....1 quarter of corn.........\

........................................................>...=...40 lbs. of coffee],

..2 ounces of gold........../

...½ ton of iron............./

[20 yards of linen....\

.....1 coat........................ .....\

..10 lbs. of tea...................\

..40 lbs. of coffee.............\

.........................................................>...=...1 quarter of corn],

..2 ounces of gold.........../

...½ ton of iron............../

[20 yards of linen....\

.....1 coat.....................\

..10 lbs. of tea.............\

..40 lbs. of coffee..........\

.............................................>...=...2 ounces of gold],

.....1 quarter of corn....../

...½ ton of iron............/

[20 yards of linen........\

.....1 coat........................\

..10 lbs. of tea................\

..40 lbs. of coffee............\

..............................................>...=...½ ton of iron],

.....1 quarter of corn......./

.....2 ounces of gold.../

Finally, note that we have shown, above, in detail, that each “logical individual”, «monad», unit, or element of the “category of individuals”, “«arithmos» of «monads»”, “assemblage of units”, or “set of elements” known herein as (3) [Marx’s] General Value-Form, or Value Form C., is a “complex unity”, or “dialectical synthesis”, or “hybrid” of (2) “logical individuals”, «monads», units, or elements of the “category of individuals”, “«arithmos» of «monads»”, “assemblage of units”, or “set of elements” known herein as [Marx’s] Expanded Value-Form, or Value Form B., which is the first “meta-«arithmos»”, first “meta-assemblage”, or first “meta-set” of the dialectical progression of categories, which constitutes Marx’s «Kapital», and of, and in intimate inner “unitation” with (1) “logical individuals”, «monads», units, or elements of the “category of individuals”, “«arithmos» of «monads»”, “assemblage of units”, or “set of elements” known herein as [Marx’s] Elementary Value-Form, or Value Form A., which is the “«arché»-«arithmos»”, or beginning category of Marx’s multi-volume «magnum opus» entitled Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, and which is the category from which all subsequent categories in Marx’s «Kapital» “descend” [or “ascend”, in terms of explicit explanatory richness / complexity/ “thought-concreteness” / ”determinateness”].

The “poladic” units, «monads», or elements – the “polads” – of Value Form C. each arise as a hybridization of “polads” of Value Form A. with “polads” of Value Form B..

The generic unit, «monad», or element of Value Form C. , the “General Form of Commodity Value”, requires the following format to express its meaning –

[aA......\

..bB.........\

.................>...=...xX]

.............../

...wW./

Each “polad” of Value Form C. takes the “solitary” format of its “Equivalent” pole from that of the “Equivalent” pole of the “polads” of Value Form A., the “Elementary Form of Commodity Value”, whose generic unit, «monad», or element is –

[aA...=...wW].

Each “polad” of Value Form C. takes the “array” format of its “Relative” pole from that of the “Equivalent” pole of the “polads” of Value Form B., the “Expanded Form of Commodity Value”, and has that format applied to its “Relative” pole. The generic unit, «monad», or element of Value Form B. is –

..................../aA
................./ ...bB
[xX...=...<........
.................\.....
...................\.wW].

Thus, each Value Form C. unit is both (i.) a hybridization of Value Form A. with Value Form B., in which the format unique to the “Equivalent” pole of Value Form A. supplies the format for the “Equivalent” pole of Value Form C., and in which the format unique to the “Equivalent” pole of Value Form B. supplies the format for the “Relative” pole of Value Form C., and (ii.) a “horizontal-reversal negation” of each unit of Value Form B., i.e., is a poles[-formats-]reversal of the poles[-formats] of the units of Value Form B..

Commentary: The progression of «arithmoi»[ of «monads»] implicit in the progression of “categorograms” that models the opening dialectical triad of Marx’s Capital, namely, the “categorograms-progression” --

Value Form A. ..--->

Value Form A. + Value Form B. ..--->

Value Form A. + Value Form B. + Value Form C. .. --->...

-- is, using F.E.D.’s shorthand for Marx’s “algebra” --

{[aA...=...wW]}..--->

.............................................................../aA
............................................................/....bB
{[aA...=...wW]}....&....{[xX.....=.....<.......
............................................................\....
..............................................................\..wW]} ..--->

................................................................/aA ...........................{[aA.......\
............................................................./ ...bB .................................bB.........\

{[aA...=...wW]}....&....{[xX.....=.....<.......................&..............................>...=...xX]}...

.............................................................\.............................................../

...............................................................\..wW]}...................wW../

-- or --

The set of all Form A. “polads” --->

The set of all Form A. “polads”..&..The set of all Form B. “polads” --->

The Form A. “polads” set..&..The Form B. “polads” set..&..The Form C. “polads” set..--->....

Value Form A. is the ultimate «arché»-category / «arithmos» Marx’s multi-volume «magnum opus», corresponding to the F.E.D. dialectical-algebraic symbol A = qA.

Value Form B. is the «arithmos» formed by the «aufheben» “meta-«monad»-ization” of the «monads» the Value Form A. «arché»«arithmos», as we have seen above, corresponding to the F.E.D. dialectical-algebraic symbol B = qB = qAA.

The format of each «monad» of the Value Form C. «arithmos» is a “complex unity” of formats of the «monads» of Value Form A. with those of Value Form B. , as we have also seen above, corresponding to the F.E.D. dialectical-algebraic symbol C = qC = qBA.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Next:

Part II. C.: Intuitive Account of the F.E.D. Generic Dialectics Algorithm --

[Meta-]Systematic Dialectics Example 3. – The Opening Triad of F.E.D.’s Dialectic of the Dialectical Arithmetics.

Deductive Proof of F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought” from the Axioms

2011-12-09T13:48:00.001-08:00

Deductive Proof of the F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought” from the Axioms of the NQ_ Axiomatic System of Dialectical Arithmetic.

[Note: The algebraic notation used in this blog-entry may be lost or denatured in automatically-emailed summaries of it].

Dear Readers,

Introduction. The F.E.D. “first dialectical arithmetic” is [also] a dialectical symbolic logic, whose algebra serves as a first [i.e., as a simplest, most abstract, least determinate in expressive capability] algebra for dialectical logic.

This F.E.D. algebra for dialectical logic [a]mends the original, Boolean algebra for [syllogistic formal] logic, at its very root: it [a]mends the key flaw in Boole’s “Fundamental Law of Thought”, which Boole expressed – in his 1847 work “The Mathematical Analysis of Logic”, and, again, in his 1854 work “The Laws of Thought”, as explicated below.

Boole used x as an algebraic variable, or algebraic “unknown”, standing for a generic class or category – standing for any class or category – and wrote his “Fundamental Law of Thought” as a universal assertion of the reduction of “logical nonlinearity” [e.g., second [or higher] degree or power] to “logical linearity” [first degree or first power]: for every category, x –

x^2 equals x^1

-- or --

x squared equals x

-- or simply --

xx = x.

The Boolean versions of the numbers ‘0’ and ‘1’ conform to this “law”: 0 × 0 = 0; 1 × 1 = 1.

Boole’s law thus captures only a purely external version of the conservation “moment” – only the first “moment” of the dialectical «aufheben» operation, which dialectical logic asserts to be the universal operation of nature-process, including of human[oid] mind-process.

The other two “moments” or aspects of the dialectical «aufheben» operation are transformation, meaning qualitative, determinate change or determinate negation, and elevation [in level/scale of existence].

The F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought”, “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Logic”, or [just] “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Process”, [a]mends Boole’s law as follows.

F.E.D. uses x as an algebraic variable, or “algebraic unknown”, standing for a generic ontological class or category – standing for any primary “kind-of-being” class or category – as an «aufheben» [self- or other-]operation, or operator.

Note Tony Smith’s definition of a “category” in his 1990 work “The Logic of Marx’s Capital”, in which he describes the systematic dialectical logic employed by Marx to construct his «magnum opus»:

“. . . consider what a category is. It is a principle (a universal) for unifying a manifold of some sort or other (different individuals, or particulars). A category thus articulates a structure with two poles, a pole of unity and a pole of differences”. [p. 5].

That is, the meaning of a category, as standing for an “assemblage” or “set” or “population” of individuals, “contains” both the unity-moment, the aspect of what those individuals have in common, the similarity that they all share, and also, equally, the differences-moment, the aspect of the dis-similarities – the individual differences – that “differentiate”, “distinguish”, and “divide” each individual “in” a category from all others “in” its same class or category.

Given that context, F.E.D. writes their “Fundamental Law of Dialectics” as a universal assertion that “logical nonlinearity” does not reduce to “logical linearity”; that, on the contrary, “logical nonlinearity” makes a qualitative difference: for every primary ontological category, x --

x squared is qualitatively unequal to x

-- or --

xx = x + delta_x

-- or --

xx = x + qxx

-- such that delta_x or qxx represents a category or class that is qualitatively different from that for which x stands, by way of an «aufheben» conservation/transformation/elevation of the individuals for which x stands, and specifically, such that delta_x or qxx stands for a new ontological category, representing for a different category or class -- a different kind of individuals than those for which x stands.

F.E.D.’s “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought” is a “strong contrary” to Boole’s “Fundamental Law of Thought”.

A “weak contrary” to Boole’s law would be –

“x squared is quantitatively unequal to x”, e.g., “x squared is greater than x”, which works for all “Whole Numbers” other than 0 and 1.

That is, F.E.D.’s “law” requires ‘dialectical meta-numbers’ whose squaring or second power generates a value which is not even within the same “number-line” as its linear or first power; a nonlinear or second power value which resides in a different perpendicular direction – in a different dimension – from its first or linear power. F.E.D. has discovered such “meta-numbers”, and has axiomatized their workings [see Blog-entry # 4 of this Blog].

In general, x ---> xx = x + qxx expresses an abstracted, simplified, purely-qualitative description of what is in reality a “quanto-qualitative” dialectical process of “quantitative change leading to / becoming / turning into qualitative change”.

For example, if we “apply” x to stand for a cosmological population of atoms, a, and qaa to stand for a cosmological population of molecules, also denoted by m, then –

a ---> aa = a + qaa = a + m

-- describes a cosmological new-ontology-generating process in which the expanded self-reproduction of the population-quantity of atoms, together with self-increase of the measure of their quantitative “density”, i.e., of their physical-spatial “concentration”, leads to a growing frequency and intensity of interactions between/among atoms – also presented as an “intra-action” within the population of atoms, or as a “self-interaction” of the category “atoms” – denoted by aa – which reaches a critical threshold, or “metafinite resonance singularity”, whereafter it gives rise, not only, possibly, to further increases in its own population-quantity, and quantitative density, but possibly also to a new kind of population of a new kind of “individuals” – molecules.

This description implies that qaa = m because molecules are the result of a self-«aufheben» operation of atoms upon atoms: each molecule is “meta-atom”, made up out of, and “internalizing”, a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of atoms. Each molecule thus represents an «aufheben» conservation / transformation / elevation of a sub-population of [“former”] atoms-only self-organizations.

Thus a "qaa" means a "meta-atom", or "atom of the second degree", made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of "atoms of the first degree".

Therefore, while the Boolean x operator -- x grasped as a [potential] operation upon itself, or upon other Boolean operators/operations -- is only a "preservation" operation, omitting the other two aspects of the full «aufheben» conservation / transformation / elevation operation, on the contrary, the F.E.D. x operation -- x gasped as a [potential] operation upon itself, or upon other dialectical-logic classes-or-categories-as-operators/-operations -- represents a full «aufheben» conservation / transformation / elevation operation, under the interpretation that qxx denotes a "meta-«arithmos»" relative to the qx or x «arithmos», that is, that qxx denotes an «arithmos» each of whose «monads» is a "meta-«monad»-ization", or a "meta-unit-ization", of the «monads» of the qx or x «arithmos».

Motivation: Historical Context and Application. It may assist comprehension and conceptualization of the full import and meaning of F.E.D.’s “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Process” -- a simple deductive demonstration of which is presented below -- if we locate that “Law” within the tide of human history – placing it in context within the development of the human phenome, of the “memes pool”, of the “psychohistorical material[ity]” of human history, and of the historical labor of the self-production of humanity.

In the language of the ancient Mediterranean original awakening of [Occidental] philosophy and science -- in the language of the original philosophy of mathematics, which both predates, and continues beyond, the time of Plato –

An «arithmos» is an assemblage of qualitative units – a “population” of individuals of a given kind: a “number” of individuals / individual units.

A «monad» is a qualitative unit.

If we inwardly form a mental abstraction – an idealized object, or mental object – representing such a qualitative unit, or qualitative «monad», in general, then, by referencing assemblages of such generic unit, or generic «monad», idea-objects -- anciently named, by Plato, the «arithmoi monadikoi», the mental “assemblages”, or groups/populations, of ‘mentalized’, or generic, «monads»: abstract, idealized mental “numbers” of abstract, idealized, mental «monads» / units -- then we can construct an «arithmetiké», or «arithmoi»-«techné» -- a universal “«arithmos»-art” [“art” of “number”], a universal “«arithmos»-craft” [“craft” of “number”], or a universal “«arithmos»-tech” [“technique” or “technology” of “number”]: “theoretical arithmetic”.

Diophantus of Alexandria, the father of algebra, in his «circa» 250 C.E. proto-algebraic manuscript entitled “The Arithmetica” -- or the «Arithmetiké» in transliterated Greek – actually “abbreviatively” symbolized the generic «Monadikos», or abstract qualitative unit, long before the advent of the Hindu’s abstract purely-quantitative unit symbol, 1, by the abbreviation Mo [actually, the Greek capital letter “Mu” with the lower-case letter omicron, o, written atop it], so that he symbolized our modern 1 + 1 = 2 by something more like a’Mo & a’Mo = b’Mo [the ancient Mediterranean Greek/Hellenistic civilization used “primed” letters of the Greek alphabet as numerals: «Gematria» or «Isopsephy»], not just by a’ & a’ = b’ as would later, more abstract notations such as our own, reflecting our modern, far deeper phenomic immersion in the “meme-etic” paradigm of what Marx called “The Elementary Form of [Commodity[-Capital-]]Value”, that is, in the core capital-relation consequence of the [mostly unconscious] “law of [capital-]value”, first fully raised into widespread human consciousness as such by Marx.

Our earlier example, in the introductory section above, concerned a cosmological population, or «arithmos», of atom units: a “number” of atoms – e.g., a galactic interstellar “atomic cloud”, soon to transform itself into a proto-stellar “molecular cloud”.

Unlike Boole’s “primary” algebra for [formal] logic -- as his “existential logic”, “existence logic”, or “logic of things” -- in which aa = a, the F.E.D. algebra for dialectic does not get stuck in stasis –

a ---> aa = a + qaa = a + m

-- or –

“atomic cloud” ---> [goes to”, or, in time, “becomes”] “molecular cloud”.

That is, once sufficiently expandedly self-reproduced quantitatively – once “number-ous” or “numerous” enough, or “populous” enough, and “densified” enough -- the atoms in the “atomic cloud” give rise to molecules as well, that is, to a qualitatively-expanded reproduction; to the irruption of the new “cosmo-ontology”; to that new kind of being, that we call molecules.

The atoms no longer conduce to mere quantitative change, within a qualitative “onto-stasis”, but to qualitative change in the form of “onto-dynamasis”: to the irruption of a new, “molecules” ontology, or kind of being, where there once was only the atoms kind of being [ + its predecessor kinds].

The thus self-transformed, proto-stellar “molecular cloud” is an [“evolute”] “cumulum” of [at least] two ontologies; a “cumulum” of both the type a and the type m “kinds of being” --

“atomic cloud” = . . .+ a;

“molecular cloud” = . . .+ a + m.

The Boolean “Fundamental Law”, xx = x, the law of eternal simple reproduction, is insufficient to construct a more scientific science, a more empirically faithful science, a science that more fully “follows nature”.

To achieve the later science – Marxian, dialectical science, the positive fruition of the dialectical, immanent critique of [mostly] unconsciously ideology-vitiated capitalist science – we need a[n a]mended “Fundamental Law”, the “Law” of the qualitatively/ontologically self-expanding self-reproduction of universe ontology –

x ---> xx = x + qxx

-- or --

qx ---> qx × qx = qx + qxx.

Juxtaposing the two “laws” – the Boolean and the “contra-Boolean” --

xx = x

-- versus –

xx = x + qxx

-- highlights how the F.E.D. “Fundamental Law” still [externally] «aufheben»-contains and [partially] retains the Boolean “Fundamental Law”, in the first term of the RHS of the F.E.D. law’s equation --

xx = x . . .

-- but how it also goes beyond that Boolean law, to [internally] «aufheben»-conserve, [internally] «aufheben»-elevate, and to qualitatively-transform, determinately-change, or «aufheben»-negate that “Boolean” term, x, via the second term of the RHS of the F.E.D. law’s equation --

xx = . . . qxx

-- which “double-contains” x , as xx, at the sub-script level of its generic ideographical symbol, qxx.

Thus, «in toto», the F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought” is a full-«aufheben» containment/conservation, qualitative transformation / determinate negation, and elevation [to a new scope/scale/level], of the “Boolean” term, of the x term – the “operand” or “argument” upon which x itself again, but this time as “function” or “operator – operates, or “functions” in –

x(x) = x + delta_x = x + qxx

--- and, indeed, the F.E.D. rule is the positive fruition of a dialectical, immanent critique of the Boolean “law”, of “Boole’s Rule”, as expressed in the first triad of the Dialectic of the Algebras for Logic which we explicated in an earlier blog-entry [wherein WE_ denotes the axioms-system of the Boolean arithmetic for logic, wherein WQ_ denotes the Whole numbers-based version – whose number-space is W = { 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .} -- of the axioms-system of the F.E.D. “First Dialectical Arithmetic”, and wherein WqQE_ denotes the axioms-system of the dialectical synthesis of WQ_ and WE_ ]:

WE_ ---> WE_ + WQ_ ---> WE_ + WQ_ + WqQE_.

F.E.D. has identified four [qualitatively-]distinct «species» of the «genos» Dialectics in their “[Psycho]Historical Dialectic of the Dialectic Itself [a Dialectic which itself also accords with the F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectics”], all four of which have been instantiated, together, so far, historically, only in the work of Karl Marx, not [quite] in the work of Hegel, or even in that of Engels, in my view.

These four «species» are --

Systematic Dialectics & Historical Dialectics & Meta-Systematic Dialectics & Psychohistorical Dialectics.

For additional background regarding these «species», see blog-entry # 9, and/or the following definitional JPGs in the F.E.D. Glossary [ http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary.html ] --

Systematic Dialectics --

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2014SEP2011,%20Definition,%20SYSTEMATIC%20DIALECTICS,%20JPEG,%20for%2015SEP2011.jpg

Historical Dialectics --

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2015SEP2011,%20Definition,%20HISTORICAL%20DIALECTICS,%20JPEG,%20for%2016SEP2011.jpg

Meta-Systematic Dialectics --

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2015SEP2011,%20Definition,%20%27META-SYSTEMATIC%20DIALECTICS%27,%20JPEG,%20for%2017SEP2011.jpg

Psychohistorical Dialectics --

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2017SEP2011,%20Definition,%20%27PSYCHOHISTORICAL%20DIALECTICS%27,%20JPEG,%20for%2018SEP2011.jpg

In the context of Historical Dialectics, and especially for an x which represents a physical «arithmos», or empirically-given “population” of “individuals”, the formula x^1 ---> x^2 = x + qxx is true primarily because qxx denotes an emergent phenomenon, an emergent property, an emergent quality, and an emergent ontology potential, an addition of new ontology that is already present «qua» potential, [with]in x. This is partially also the case for Psychohistorical Dialectics and for Meta-Systematic Dialectics.

In the context of Systematic Dialectics -- the Dialectics of theoretical systems as generalized, “genericized” idealizations; of “idea-objects” or “mental objects” -- where x(x) = x + qxx is a law of the “expanding reproduction” of ideas, and, especially, for an x which represents a mental-only «arithmos», such as N, or W, i.e., an abstractly-given “population” of “internal”, “mental objects”, most remote from physical/”external” experience, existing as such only for “internal”, “mental experience”, the fundamental formula of Dialectics, x^1 ---> x^2 = x + qxx, is true primarily because the category/concept/idea denoted by qxx is semantically, conceptually implicit [with]in -- is already present as a “presupposition” [with]in – x, but requires mental reflection [“self-dialogue”, or “intra-mind dialogue”], or inter-personal dialogue [“inter-mind dialogue”], to become explicit; to be “lifted up’, or “elevated”, into “explicitude”. This is partially also the case for Meta-Systematic Dialectics and for Psychohistorical Dialectics.

As with a holographic image, or hologram, in which each part of the whole image contains a “sided”, “tendentious”, “distorted”, “deformed”, “fuzzy” replica of that whole image, such that the image as a whole, as “made up out of its parts”, is, in this sense, “made up out of itself”, so it is also with a well-developed, matured theory, or conceptual system. That is, such a theory-system is “holonomic”, meaning that each of its category/concept parts “contains” – entails / involves / presupposes -- all of the other category/concepts of that system implicitly. This “implicitude” can be evoked, or “out-voked”, into “explicitude”, via introspective reflection, or via inter-personal [“Socratic”] dialogue, or via skillful oral, or written, “monologue-ic” presentation.

The pedagogical strategy of Systematic Dialectics , as a dialectical method of totality-theories presentation, is to start with/from the simplest, most abstract of the categories/concepts in this “holonomic” network of mutually-involved, “inter-pre-supposing”, “intergenerate” categories/concepts, as «arché» / beginning, and to proceed from there, evoking a[n ever-lengthening] series of more complex, more “thought-concrete” [more “determinate”; more richly «speci»-fied] categories/concepts, as successor series, from each predecessor series, -- from each less lengthy, less complex, less “thought-concrete”, series -- until the most lengthy series, ending with the most-complex, most-“thought-concrete” category/concept -- one which most richly in-itself represents the total human experience of the [sub-]totality of human experience so theorized -- is reached / presented / evoked.

Demonstration. A Simple Deductive Proof of the F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought” from the Axioms of the NQ_ axioms-system of Dialectical Arithmetic.

Given: n is an element of the set N = { 1, 2, 3, . . .} of "Natural" Numbers.

To Prove: x "times" x is qualitatively unequal to x,

for every x in NQ = { q1, q2, q3, . . .}, the set of the F.E.D. "First Dialectical Meta-Numbers".

Proved:

Assertion
#......................Assertion Content_____________________.......Assertion Justification

1......................n is an element of N......................................................Given

2......................qn is an element of NQ, for every n in N..............Axiom 5

3.....................qn squared = qn + q2n, for every n in N.........Axiom 9

4.....................n does not equal 2n, for every n in N................*

5......................qn is qualitatively unequal to q2n,
............................for every n in N...............................................................Axiom 6

6.......................qn + q2n is qualitatively unequal to qn,
.............................for every n in N..............................................................Axiom 8

7.......................qn may be represented by x,
.............................for any n in N.................................................................Equivalent Substitution

8........................x squared is qualitatively unequal to x..............Assertion # 3 &
............................................................................................................................Assertion # 6, above:
............................................................................................................................Q.E.D.

*The proposition "n does not equal 2n, for every n in N." is justifiable, for example, from a corollary of a theorem of the "Natural Numbers" axiomatic system of arithmetic that derives from the "multiplicative identity element" axiom for that system. This theorem asserts that for any element of the set of "Natural Numbers", call it m, that is not the "multiplicative identity element" of that set, and for any element of the set of "Natural Numbers", call it x, it is true that x < mx.

Key Upshot: The “contra-Boolean” F.E.D. “Fundamental Law of Dialectical Thought” is not a direct premise, assumption, presumption, postulate, or axiom of the NQ_ axiomatic system of arithmetic for dialectical algebra: it is a proven theorem of that system.

The proof above invokes the following Axioms of the NQ_ axiomatic system of arithmetic for dialectical algebra, posted previously to this Blog, in blog-entry # 4 --

“Dear Readers,

Thought it might be useful to reproduce here the core "axioms" -- the main rules -- of the "rules-system", or "axioms-system" ["axiomatic system"] of the F.E.D. "First Dialectical Arithmetic".

. . .

Axiom 5. For every n in N, qn is in NQ.

[this states the «aufheben» tie between the N and the NQ. The rest of the rules below state "Non-Standard" aspects of the NQ relative to the "Standard" N].

Axiom 6. For any j and k, both in N:

If j is quantitatively unequal to k, then qj is qualitatively unequal to qk.

[This axiom expands the "trichotomy principle" of the "Standard" arithmetics -- the principle that for any arithmetical objects a and b, just one of the following three relations obtains:

a < b, or a = b, or a > b

-- to a "tetrachotomy principle", that adds a fourth possibility, that of qualitative inequality, to the basic possible relations between any pair of arithmetical objects].

. . .

Axiom 8. For all j, and k, both in N:

If j is quantitatively unequal to k, then

qj + qk is qualitatively unequal to qx

for any x in N.

[This is the rule that makes dialectically interpreted NQ expressions "ontologically anti-reductionist". It means that a "heterogeneous sum" of ontological categories, like C + M in the previous blog-entry, does not reduce or collapse into any single ontological category at the same level of generalization as its summands. This rule too is crucial to the calculations summarized in that previous blog-entry].

Axiom 9. For every j and k, both in N:

[qk] x [qj] = [qj] + [q(k+j)].

[This rule is most crucial of all to the "purely-qualitative, algorithmic calculations" presented in the previous blog-entry. It defines what "multiplication" means among the NQ "dialectical meta-numbers". It is called, by F.E.D., "the double-«aufheben» evolute product rule".]

. . .”

Regards,

Miguel

Principles of Trans-Capitalist, Social[ist] Equity, IV.: Citizen Allocational Equity

2011-12-09T13:45:00.000-08:00

Principles of Political-Economic Democracy, IV.: Citizen Allocational Equity

CITIZEN ALLOCATIONAL EQUITY -- KEY COMPONENT OF EQUITARIAN NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS

RevLeft Theory Forum Participants,

CITIZEN ALLOCATIONAL EQUITY

Via unison with the new constitutional principles, rights, and properties, of --

(1.) CITIZEN EXTERNALITY EQUITY,
(2.) CITIZEN BIRTHRIGHT EQUITY, and
(3.) CITIZEN STEWARDSHIP EQUITY,

-- the new constitutional equity principle of --

(4.) CITIZEN ALLOCATIONAL EQUITY

-- constitutes a key component of the proposed new political-economic system -- of the system of POLITICAL-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY --
that is the predicted successor system to the present, self-destroying Capital-Equity-Only system of increasingly anti-democratic political economy.

This proposed constitutional principle of "CITIZEN ALLOCATIONAL EQUITY" may be summarized as follows --

"Citizen Allocational Equity, [is the] social principle, and the social policy, of equitable regional-geographical allocation of social property — of socially/publicly-owned means of social reproduction resources/funding — on a «per capita», or per human person, basis."

Some greater detail regarding this principle follows [edited for clarity by M.D.] --

"Truly equitable distribution of, e.g., the public assets ceded, from the stock of global social property, in stewardship, to local and regional Citizen Stewardship Equity producers' associations, may involve, especially initially, from the point of view of the internationally base-elected A.I.D.P. [«Association Internationale des Directeurs Publiques»], compensatory and reparative elements, until the injustices of past capitalist-imperialist social auto-cannibalization of the capital-hinterland and former "Second World" and "Third World" regions of the globe has been adequately redressed [if such reparative plans are adopted via popular referendum].

Such allocative equity, in any case, involves the solution of presently unsolved — and hardly even posed — problems of 'social-negentropy accounting' in the context of a 'meta-market' social system, in which mere monetary-valuations provide an even more inadequate metric of 'social-reproductive use-value' than they do now, still within the integument of the "capital-relation".

The nature of 'Citizen Allocational Equity' is thus that of an historical equity-principle, which targets an "ideal" of equal «per capita» regional allocation of socially-owned social negentropy, but which entails recognition that such an ideal standard becomes relevant only once an "equipotential" among all regions of the globe has been achieved with regard to life-opportunities.

There will be a role for the constitutionally and juridically regulated and monitored 'Declarations of Peace and Prosperity' — replacing, and hopefully preempting and obviating the whole history of "Declarations of War", up to today — adopted by one global region, with respect to another, as part of the process of achieving the necessary compensatory and reparative allocations that constitute '''the correction of the past''' in terms of wealth- and resource-sharing.

Such 'Declarations', and, even more so, their implementation, involves subtle applications of a mastery of human-social science — of the science of the catalysis of accelerated human-social self-development — that are all but beyond the ken of our current, capital-compromised and capital corrupted civilization.

These 'Declarations' might involve something of what Marx envisioned, with respect to Russia, and with respect to the Russian Mir [village community], '''given a successful proletarian revolution in the West''', in his Preface to the Russian edition of Capital (volume I), and in his draft letters of response to Vera Zasulich."

For a fuller definition and discussion, see --

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm

[especially Sub-Sections 5.c. & 5.d. in]. --

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/AmendmentXXVIII/AmendmentXXVIII.pdf

Regards,

Miguel

Principles of Trans-Capitalist, Social[ist] Equity, III.: Citizen Stewardship Equity

2011-12-02T23:44:00.000-08:00

Principles of Trans-Capitalist, Social[ist] Equity, III.: Citizen Stewardship Equity

CITIZEN STEWARDSHIP EQUITY: A KEY FEATURE OF THE POLITICAL-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY SOLUTION TO THE GLOBAL CRISIS OF HUMANITY, NOW UNDERWAY 

Dear Readers,

Below is my edited excerpt – edited for greater clarity – from a text by the Equitist Advocacy Group [E.A.G.] on their proposed new constitutional principle of Citizen Stewardship Equity.

CITIZEN STEWARDSHIP EQUITY

"Citizen Stewardship Equity, supersedes the "wage-labor", '''sold labor-power''', or '''alienated labor''' relation of capital.

It encompasses the constitutional rights of each working adult, to membership in, and 1-person/1-vote 'economic suffrage' within, the 'producers' councils', or 'stewards' councils', democratically managing the socially-/legally-/constitutionally-favored producer's cooperative enterprises, and including the right to share in the profits-of-enterprise of any producers' cooperative in which that citizen works, with partial rights of use / disposition over the socially-owned means of social reproduction ceded, in stewardship, but not in local ownership, to these producers' cooperatives / local producers' associations, under the collective/democratic control of their base-elected 'stewards' councils', in continuous negotiation with these enterprises' own 'externality-equities' property-holding 'publics' boards', as part of Equitarian Society's «aufheben»-negation / conservation / elevation of market-based checks-and-balances regarding the pricing and quality of the goods/services supplied to the citizen-consumers by these enterprises, using equitably-allocated, socially-owned means of social reproduction.  

This newly-emergent 'Stewardship-Equity-relation' is expected and intended to increasingly supplant the likewise «aufheben»-conserved/constrained '''wage-labor''' / private-capital social-relationship-of-production [cf. the model of "Economic Democracy" comprehensively constructed and defended by David Schweickart in his book Against Capitalism [Cambridge University Press, NY: 1993], as well as in his book After Capitalism [Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., NY: 2002], to which we are indebted, in part, for key aspects of the conceptual derivation of this crucial sub-principle, and 'socio-ontological «species»', or 'social relations of production «species»', of 'generalized equity'].

. . .

Marx: Joint-Stock Capital-Equity as the Perfected Form of Capital, Transitional to 'Democratic Communism'

In the context of this subject-matter, it is profoundly informative to see what Marx actually had to say, in the very core of his written works, about the immanent emergence — from out of the heart of the capital-relation itself — of the core social relation of production of 'democratic communist' society, in the transition from capital-relation-based society to 'democratic communist' society, in Capital, volume III. --

"The general remarks, which the credit system so far elicited from us, were the following: ...

III. Formation of stock companies. Thereby: ...

3) Transformation of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, administrator of other people's capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist.

Even if the dividends which they receive include the interest and the profit of enterprise, i.e., the total profit (for the salary of managers is, or should be, simply the wage of a specific type of skilled labour, whose price is regulated in the labour-market like that of any other labour), this total profit is henceforth received only in the form of interest, i.e., as mere compensation for owning capital that is now entirely divorced from the function in the actual process of reproduction, just as this function in the person of the manager is divorced from ownership of capital. ...

In stock companies the function is divorced from capital ownership, hence also labour is entirely divorced from ownership of means of production and surplus-labour.

This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property.

On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of the associated producers, into social functions.

This is the abolition [one-sided translation of the German core- "dialectical" word <<aufheben>> -- M.D.] of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction, which <<prima facie>> represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production.

It manifests itself as such a contradiction in its effects.

It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference.

It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators, and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promoting, stock issuance, and stock speculation.

It is private production without the control of private property. ...

The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.

But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour [the E.A.G. names this transitional form 'workers' capital[ism]' -- M.D.].

They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories.

Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production.

The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. ...

The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one, and positively in the other. ...

The credit system appears as the main lever of over-production and over-speculation in commerce solely because the reproduction process, which is elastic by nature, is here forced to its extreme limits, and is so forced because a large part of the social capital is employed by people who do not own it, and who consequently tackle things quite differently than the owner, who anxiously weighs the limitations of his private capital in so far as he handles it himself.

This simply demonstrates the fact that the self-expansion of capital based on the contradictory nature of capitalist production permits an actual free development only up to a certain point, so that in fact it constitutes an immanent fetter and barrier to production, which is continually broken through by the credit system.

Hence, the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market.

It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise the material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.

At the same time credit accelerates the violent eruption of this contradiction — crises — and thereby the elements of disintegration of the old mode of production.

The two characteristics immanent in the credit system are, on the one hand, to develop the incentive of capitalist production, enrichment through the exploitation of the labour of others, to the purest and most colossal form of gambling and swindling, and to reduce more and more the number of the few who exploit the social wealth; on the other hand, to constitute the form of transition to a new mode of production.

It is this ambiguous nature, which endows the principal spokesmen of credit from Law to Isaac Pereire with the pleasant character mixture of swindler and prophet."

[Karl Marx; Capital: A Critique of Political Economy [vol. III], '''The Shapes Taken-On by the Reproductions-Process of/by Capitals Overall''', Chapter XXVII, "The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production", International Publishers Co., Inc. [NY: 1967], pages 435-441]

In a letter to Engels [Marx to Engels; April 2, 1858, in MEW 29, page 312, reproduced in Rubel on Marx: Five Essays, Cambridge University Press [NY: 1981], page 216, emphasis added by M.D.], Marx writes of the planned structure of his critique of the political economy of the system of «kapitals», with even greater explicitude regarding the transitional character of the emergence of the "share capital" «species», i.e. the "capital equity stock" «species», of the social relation of [social re-]production called "capital" --

"Capital is divided into four sections.

1. Capital en général [in Fr.] (This is the material of the first brochure).

2. Competition or the reciprocal action of the many capitals.

3. Credit, where capital appears as the general element in opposition to the many capitals.  

4. Share capital as the most perfect form (assuming the character of communism), together with all its contradictions."

What are we to make of these positings, by Marx, of capital equity stock, and of its '''stockholder democracy''', as a close kin to '''the associated mode of production''', and to "communism"?

An Historical Helix of Social Democratization, Spanning the Epoch of Capital as Dominant Human-Social Relation of Production

The incipient political democracy and civil liberty that early, competitive, ascendant-phase capitalism asserted, initially against its feudal and Absolute-Monarchical rivals, can only be restored in a higher form, and preserved from otherwise total destruction by the late, decadent-phase form of that same capitalism, by means of advancing that initially merely political democracy to a politically-and-economically democratized, actualized democratic political-economy.

We hold that the way to achieve this begins with an extension and generalization of "stockholder democracy" into '''stakeholder democracy''', in a "publics" sense; that is, by way of a constitutional institutionalization of Equitarian, externality-equities-based economic democracy; a public and popular economic democracy that was absent as such throughout the capital epoch, seeded only in that democracy among capitalists — among the holders/owners of 'internality-equity' — immanent in the principles and practices [however often honored in the breach] of joint-stock company "stockholder democracy"."

SUMMARY OF 'STEWARDSHIP EQUITY', ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

'Citizen Stewardship Equity' is designed to gradually supplant and supersede the capital-relation, by superseding the wagéd-labor and salaried-labor relationships, the latter, forming the core of the capital-relation.

This new «species» of social equity rights entails the constitutional empowerment of each citizen to participate in the co-formation of, and the democratic, 'one steward, one vote' co-conduct of the production and of the democratic self-management of, localized, enterprise-level, associations of producers [i.e., socialized producers' cooperatives] on a 'one citizen, one vote' basis.

This means that each such citizen-producer would be empowered to act as a co-steward of that part of the total social property — in the form of, e.g., production plant and equipment — granted, and '''rented''', to that citizen's qualified producer-association, as collective self-employer, by a local, public, social bank, itself also a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' co-stewardship association/cooperative, democratically self-managed by its own citizen-producers, as collective self-employees.

This 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' right would include the right of each such citizen co-steward of such social property in-use to an equal share in the net profits of enterprise generated by that cooperative association of producers, as well as to a — perhaps unequal — base-salary in return for the collectively required productive participation in, and contribution to, that association for production, as democratically decided by the assembly of the co-stewards of that cooperative enterprise.

Payment of those profit-shares and base-salaries to themselves by those co-stewards, would depend upon their productive contribution, and also upon their collective success in finding fellow-citizen customers for their product/service output, fellow-citizens/customers willing to pay a price sufficient to fund that salary and that profit-sharing, and for whose patronage they would face competition from other socialized stewardship cooperatives, as well as from remnant capitalist enterprises."

For full article, see –

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm

For more about 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' Rights, see Section 5 in –

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/AmendmentXXVIII/AmendmentXXVIII.pdf

Regards,

Miguel

Principles of Trans-Capitalist, Social[ist] Equity, II.: Citizen Externality Equity

2011-12-01T22:22:00.000-08:00

Principles of Trans-Capitalist, Social[ist] Equity, II.: Citizen Birthright Equity [as propounded by the E.A.G., the Equitist Advocacy Group]

CITIZEN BIRTHRIGHT EQUITY: A KEY ELEMENT IN THE POLITICAL-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY SOLUTION TO THE PRESENTLY-UNFOLDING GLOBAL CRISIS OF HUMANITY.

Dear Readers,

Below is my edited version -- edited for clarity -- of an E.A.G. text on the topic of their proposed Citizen Birthright Equity human-social-constitutional principle:

"CITIZEN BIRTHRIGHT EQUITY.

The principle of the human-social generalization, or humanity-wide “universalization”, of equity-holding, to all social citizens, and of an “onto-dynamasis” beyond the kinds of such equity presently in existence, to birth new kinds -- e.g., including “Externality Equity” — the heart and «arché» of the new “human-social-ontology” whose totality the E.A.G. denotes by E [intended as a “dialectogram” symbol connoting the successor human-social system to the present, globally-failing [state-]capitalist system: the successor system that is founded upon what the E.A.G. calls the “Generalized Equity” social relation of production -- M.D.], denoting the new, Capital-transcending social relation of [social re-]production — does not end with the collective, public-democratic “property-ization” of “externality equities” as described in my previous post.

It extends as well to the social generalization of the proprietorship, initially, of “internality equities” – capital equity stock and other traditional capital assets -- by all citizens, by means of a policy of “Citizen Birthright Equity Endowments” per an amended, expanded, “constitutionalized” Bill of Social Rights & Responsibilities.

This new «species» of equity – Citizen Birthright Equity -- also flows from principles of “human-social risk management”, of “economic-systemic-risk management”, and of “human-social self-investment”.

It means that every child born into “Equitarian Society”, is granted, «ipso jure», at birth, by virtue of fundamental constitutional right, a taxes-funded/social-rents-funded equal sum of capital equity stock, comprised, initially, of small portions of all publicly-issued stocks, bonds, and other capital assets meeting legislated standards, as well as, more and more, of extant social property income streams, designed as an integrated social/individual risk management trust-fund, and as a unified, “omni-portable”, globally-portable “social safety net”, as a socially-constrained individual property of every new-born citizen.

This new constitutional right, in this sense, makes every baby born into human society a ‘‘‘trust-fund baby’’’.

[The slavish mentality drummed into the minds of many people by the capitalist plutocracy's mass media, and by their general ideologies-manufacturing operations, and by their submissiveness-maintenance operations, preconditions the response, to this proposal, and to any similar proposals, for many, to: "WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD" any such principle.

Only crumbs from the Lords' Tables go to the commoners!

Well, "we" can apparently "afford" TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in unlimited bailouts for the Big Pig Wall Street Banks!

“We” evidently can “afford” handing over the U. S. Taxpayers’ U. S. Treasury – the wages and salaries repossessed via taxes by the ruling class from their workers’ incomes -- to the very swine who carried out the plutocracy's planned global economic collapse, to help these swine to consolidate even further their concentrated ownership of U. S. banking, by buying-out – with taxpayer dollars – their former, smaller competitors, who they also bankrupted via their collapse-engineering, as their reward for service to that plutocracy; the very swine who confiscated the home-purchase down-payments of millions of Americans, and who drove millions of Americans out of their homes, and on to the streets, who robbed millions of Americans of their life savings, of their pensions, of their 401(k) assets; who shipped our factories and our jobs overseas -- all so that they can use the money we pay in taxes to pay for their flagrantly-exorbitant bonuses, and to lobby [i.e., BRIBE] Congress and the Executive branch to pass no laws or regulations that would prevent them from committing the same massive crimes, and the same massive theft, all over again, next time on an even larger scale, and to lobby [i.e., BRIBE] the judiciary to render no rulings or convictions that would hold them accountable for their massive crimes against humanity, as well as to pay for the elephantiasis of the "Defense" Budget, so that Halliburton and the rest of the Oil/Military-Industrial Complex can continue useless, stealthy-genocidal wars, to rape both the U. S. Taxpayers, and the peoples of the "Third World" -- a "Third World" that they and their hired servant-dictators created as such in the first place!

"We" can apparently “afford” TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to finance such utter waste and such utter social toxicity and criminality.

BUT – NO! –“WE” CAN NEVER “AFFORD” TO DO SOMETHING TRULY OMNI-BENEFICIAL WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS -- like use part of them to give every child born a real chance in life!

The trouble with slaves, in terms of their own good, is that they tend to develop a slave mentality: the only thing that they ever think can be "afforded" is more "caviar" for their slave-masters.

Such slaves may go ahead and “live” on their knees, kissing slave-master-butt, for all of their "lives", if that is their masters' "preference" -- thus “validating” the “marginal utility” of their slave masters' “theory of marginal utility”.

Others would rather “kick slave-master butt”, and “throw the baggage out”! -- M.D.]

Citizen Birthright Equity means per capita citizen net assets, in place of today's plutocracy-mandated, malignantly growing per capita citizen net liabilities; the share of each citizen in plutocracy-incurred public debt [a way by which the plutocratic minority finances its destructive imperial enterprises and their required '''permanent war economy''' via taxes – in fact, by legislatively-coerced consumption, foisted upon the non-super-rich majority by the plutocracy and its abject prostitutes, the “politicians” who serve that plutocracy’s every whim, and who never wittingly serve the public, the majority of the electorate, as they are pledged to do].

* Moral Hazard Mitigations. The mitigation of the massive "moral hazard" potential of this proposed Citizen Birthright Equity social policy will require that there be many "strings attached", restricting the uses of this public investment in each citizen-person by that person, and by various parents or guardians and heirs of that person, at various stages of that person's expected life-history, and beyond. Each social equity-endowment trust-fund must therefore remain a partially-social property; a legislatively-constrained, “statutorially”-constrained, only-partially-individual/-personal/-private property.

* Principles of Universalized Inheritance and of Universalized Birth-Advantage. This policy of “universal advantage” / “universal inheritance” / “social inheritance” -- of the “universalization” of capital/equity ownership / social property ownership / inheritance as a partial remedy for the viciously self-amplifying hyper-inequalities of plutocratic-minority capital-advantage and capital-privilege; a ‘‘‘social risk management’’’ policy designed to achieve an «aufheben»-negation of some of the socially-recognized systemic risks of the predecessor, «Kapitals»-system -- envisions a unification of the fragmented and otherwise inadequate – inadequate in quality and in quantity -- «Kapital»-epoch legacy of “social safety net” provisions.

If not, in the beginning, birthing every baby with a “golden spoon”, or even with a “silver spoon”, in her or his mouth, every baby would be born with at least a “stainless steel spoon in his or her mouth".

These unified provisions would address the management of the risk of the «aufheben»-“contained” but also of the «aufheben»-“retained” elements of capital-profit-based economics, plus of the new, Equitarian system, as well as of the universal risks of which human social life is, generically, in all human epochs, the heir.

Under the constitutional requirement of Citizen Birthright Equity, human society’s collective portion of equal initial social investment in each individual citizen, by social right of birth [as distinct from the presently persisting, vastly unequal family investment in / inheritance of each child, resulting from, e.g., the unequal fruits of achievements, and/or of “robber-baron” robberies, by that child’s ancestors], and the partially age-based, and tests-of-knowledge-based, constitutionally- and legislatively-restricted allocation of each child’s birth-right equity trust-fund to use-access for that citizen, would be legislatively designed to meet the expected, standard costs of foreseeable life-history events, including --

* Basic Education -- primary school, trade-school, college, professional, and basic ‘‘‘life-long learning’’’/re-training in the event of radical skills-obsolescence/skills-“techno-depreciation”, etc.;

* Major Medical Care -- for "normal", plus for at least some classes of "catastrophic", illnesses;

* Initial Home Purchase -- down-payment assistance for young adult first home acquisition;

* Entrepreneurship Opportunity -- public “venture capital” funding for first small business launch [for businesses launching below the legislated threshold employee-count at which Citizen Stewardship Equity requirements begin to apply], or for first producers-cooperative launch [for those aspects of such launch costs that are constitutionally, or “statutorially”, not fundable by social bank grant -- whether social-rent-payment-requiring or not -- to qualified Citizen Stewardship Equity producer cooperative start-ups];

* Unemployment Insurance -- for cases of economic downturns, producers-cooperative bankruptcies, etc.;

* Re-Training -- for redressing “techno-depreciation”, or “technological obsolescence-depreciation”, of ‘‘‘human capital’’’, or for funding acquisition of that minimum level of “human skills-negentropy” needed to qualify for Citizen Stewardship Equity producers’ cooperatives opportunities;

* Retirement -- partially replacing [the increasingly plutocracy-gutted] employer pension, employer 401(k), personal IRA, and Social Security programs.

Costs of social failures by the individual -- e.g., of welfare livelihood-support in the cases of extended, perhaps non-economic-downturn-induced unemployment, or of incarceration costs in cases of criminal conviction(s) -- would be borne out of that citizen’s Citizen Birthright Equity trust fund, up to its near-exhaustion, thus also forming a further dis-incentive to such failures.

[Economic downturns may continue to occur, irregularly, during the period of the ‘‘‘formal domination’’’, or of the merely ‘‘‘formal subsumption’’’, of the capital social-relation-of-production by the rest of the emergent social-relation-of-production of “Generalized Equity”. However, any immanent social processes described in terms of a ‘‘‘social dynamical law’’’ of such downturns is expected to be increasingly ‘‘socio-ontologically’’ distinct from the immanent social process which drives the iterated irruption, with ever-escalating amplitude, of escalating-duration periods of contracted social reproduction within the “descendant-phase” sub-epoch of the ‘‘‘real domination’’’ of, and of the more or less exclusive social rule of, the “capital-relation”, and of its agents and personifications, the concentrated-capital-owning plutocracy.].

This unification, with each citizen as cost-concerned customer, given the “voucher-like” personal stake of each citizen in the conservation, and expansion, of the principal of each one's Citizen Birthright Equity social trust-fund, would “re-marketize” social welfare provision, and “re-competitivize” the pricing of medical and other social welfare services, and, thus, “re-incentivize” the exercise of cost-efficiency and cost-discipline in their production, de-incenting the “take it for granted” moral hazard of present, “free-of-charge”, state-bureaucracy-produced, or state-bureaucracy-subsidized, ‘‘‘social welfare’’’ provisions.

The policy of “Citizen Birthright Equity Endowment” of every citizen-child raises questions of the disposition of such endowments in the event of termination of pregnancy, averting the birth of a new citizen, by right of the mother.

Parents must not be “ incentivized” to ‘‘‘profit’’’ monetarily from their children’s social trust-funds, though, even so, the financial worries and burdens of parenthood would be significantly mitigated by this policy, even countervailing against the extreme amplification of the “demographic transition” presently evident, in part, in advanced capitalist nations’ growing tendency toward negative rates of human population growth [as one moment of their growing tendency of “contracted social reproduction”].

The “Citizen Birthright Equity” policy would not constitute a direct financial incentive to never abort a fetus.

However, the high social valuation of each and every life implicit in social adoption of this Citizen Birthright Equity policy suggests a certain social resolution to the prevailing “right-of-choice” versus “right-of-life” social conundrum, a conundrum which presently forms an apparent antinomy, but which we see, rather, as yet another dialectical “self-antithesis”, or “self-duality”, within the prevailing social concept of right, one which cries out for immanent critique.

This “intra-duality” has been opportunistically exploited, manipulated, and amplified — in anti-dialectical, rigid, frozen, mutually-absolutist “either-vs.-or” fashion — by the “Meta-Nazi” plutocracy’s “ideologies-engineering” operations, so as to foster and reinforce the protracted social strife of both sides of a diametrically opposed, antagonistic, seemingly “irreconcilable” social antithesis, thus serving as yet one further tool for the “Meta-Nazis’ ” ideology-based divide-and-conquer subjugation of the majority -- of the “producer-class”: the public. ...".

For full article, see --

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm

Regards,

Miguel