THE HISTORICAL DIALECTIC of the Wage-Labor and/versus the Capital Categories. Part 03.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE

HISTORICAL

DIALECTIC

 

of

 

the

Wage-Labor

 

and/versus

 

the Capital

 

Categories.

 

 

 

Part 03.:

 

Everywhere-Dense

Dialectic

Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

In ancient times, in ancient civilizations, long before the “capital” social relation of social reproduction and the “wage-labor” social relation of social reproduction coalesce into the predominant social relation of societal self-re-production of modernity, of industrial capitalism, there was a prehistory of the capital social relation – there existed socially-marginal, socially-subordinate, “antediluvian forms” [Marx] of capital – e.g., merchant’s capital and usurers’ capital.

 

Just so, also in ancient times, in ancient civilizations, there existed a pre-history of ‘protoic’, socially-marginal, ‘‘‘antediluvian’’’ forms of wage-labor, that were, initially, unhinged from those “antediluvian” capital-forms and their monetary-profits-creation.

 

The relative sub-species categories of this ‘protoic’ wage-labor relative-species category include:

1.  Ancient Soldiers’ Wages.  The Roman military state, from circa 406 BCE, paid a retainer, called, in Latin, a «salarium» or «stipendium», to its citizen-soldiers – typically land-owning farmers – to meet their livelihood expenses while they were away from their farms, providing military services to the Roman state, which funded these salaries, not from money-capital, but from plundered tribute and taxes.  These salaries were subsistence revenues for the soldiers, and did not produce surplus-value for the Roman state to re-invest.  The Roman state merely consumed the labor-services of their soldiers, made possible by paying such salaries to their soldiers.  As land-owning farmers, these citizen-soldiers were not completely severed from means of production ownership-access, hence escaped the “modern proletarian” condition of the propertyless wage-laborer, incorporated into capital via the wage as sole legally-sanctioned means of worker-survival.  The “return on investment” r[e]aped by the Roman state via this «praxis» was not a mass of grown or crafted commodities, saleable, on markets, for a profit, but plundered goods, captives of war convertible to slaves-as-commodities for the Roman, slave-labor-based economy, and incremental land-ownership for the Roman state.  

 

2.  Wages Paid to Slave Overseers.  In the ancient Roman agricultural estates [«latifundia»], an overseer of slaves, called, in Latin, a «villicus», himself often a – highly-trusted, by the estate’s owner(s) – slave or former slave [“freedman”], was paid a wage called a «peculium»: a sum of money, and/or of property, managed by that «villicus», but still legally owned by the “slave-master” owner(s) of that «latifundium».  This wage served as part of a slave-labor economy’s psychological incentives management strategy.  The overseer, if still a slave, might save these wages to eventually buy freedom, motivating such an overseer to a draconian extraction of labor from the “overseen” field slaves, “lower” in the plantation hierarchy.  These «latifundia» were themselves ‘protoic pre-vestiges’ of later, industrial-capitalist “productive capital” [Marx], producing, e.g., massive quantities of grain agricultural commodities, mainly for Mediterranean markets, and selling those commodities, on those markets, typically at a profit.    

 

3.  Wages Paid to Ancient Day Laborers.  In ancient Athens, there existed free citizens, called «thetes», who owned no land or other means of livelihood – e.g., who were unable to farm for their livelihoods – and worked in return for a wage, paid to them daily.  Within the psychohistorically-inevitable «mentalité» born of the human-social conditions of those times, and of the ‘human phenome’ that those conditions reproduced, these «thetes» were looked down upon, by “landed” commoner citizens and “nobility” alike, with extreme derogation and disdain, as ‘almost slaves’, or ‘near slaves’.  This was because they were dependent upon others for their daily livelihoods – a condition akin to “temporary slavery”.

 

However, modern, full-form, Industrial-capitalist “wage-labor” required a long historical process which completely severed the “wage worker” from ownership-access to any means of production – agricultural, craft, industrial, etc. – so that the wage-worker became abjectly livelihood-dependent upon wage-employment by individual capitals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 02.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series. THE SYSTEMATIC DIALECTIC within the Category of Dialectical Synthesis Units as «Genos»-Category.

 

THE

SYSTEMATIC

DIALECTIC

 

within

 

the

Category

of

Dialectical

Synthesis

Units

as

«Genos»-

Category.

 

 

 

Part 02.:

 

Everywhere-Dense

Dialectic

Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

Over the course of long experience with ‘dialectograming’ and analyzing a plethora of individual triadic and also more-extended systematic, historical, ‘diachronico-synchronic’ and psychohistorical dialectics, for a vast variety of subject-matter Domains, we have gradually come to notice a triadicity in the sub-categories of the ‘dialectical uni-categories’ within a given Domain – i.e., of the sub-categories whose units represent dialectical syntheses, or hybridizations, of some of the units of an '«arché»-category' and/with some units of its 'contra-category' – of units of a 'thesis-category' and of/with those of its 'antithesis-category'.

 

The three species-categories that we have so far noticed, recurrently, within the 'dialectical synthesis category', taken as their relative «genos»-category, are as follows:

 

1.  The most common kind of dialectical ‘uni-category’, or ‘synthesis-category’, encountered by us so far, is a category whose units are a Hegelian-like, combinatoric ‘“Complex unity”’ hybrid of the ‘thesis-category’ units and/with the ‘antithesis-category’ units.  

An ‘exo-human’ dialectic-of-Nature example of this kind of synthesis/hybrid, complex-unity unit would be a first-generation star.  Such a star is a combination of an outer shell of atoms [e.g., of Helium nuclei], with an inner core of “particles” [e.g., of a plasma of dissociated protons and electrons], category-symbol q_ar.  

An example from the dialectic of human Nature is the complex unity of the human Genome and the language-based human Phenome within, and constituting, each acculturated human individual, category-symbol q_PG.  

The units of such a hybrid category are, quite aptly, designated as consisting of BOTH ‘thesis-units’ and ‘antithesis-units’.

 

2.  The dialectical-synthesis kind second-most commonly encountered by us, to-date, is the interMediate or ‘‘‘Mean-like’’’ ‘uni-category’ of dialectical-synthesis units.  

An ‘exo-human’ dialectic-of-Nature example of this kind of dialectical-synthesis category unit would be the “anyons particles” category of the dialectical unity of particle ‘Bosonicity’ and/with ‘Fermionicity’, whose observed “statistics” may fall “anywhere in-between” “Fermi-Dirac statistics” and their, polar-opposite, “Bose-Einstein statistics”[For more, see: F.E.D. Dialectics: THE DIALECTIC of Fermions and/versus Bosons. Part 01.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.].  

A dialectic-of-human-Nature example is that of Aristotle’s “Doctrine of the Mean” ethical theory, whereby optimal human conduct quality locates as a biased mean between the extremes of the given Domain of human conduct qualities [for more about this dialectical synthesis, see: F.E.D. Dialectics: ‘The Dialectic of Aristotle's Ethics, circa 335 B.C.E.-- ‘Dialectogram’: ‘A Systematic-Dialectic Method of Presentation for the Domain of the Aristotelian Philosophy of Ethical Behavior’, Single Triad'.].  

The units of this species of ‘dialectical-synthesis category’ are, quite aptly, designated as residing BETWEEN the category for the ‘thesis-units’ and the category for the ‘antithesis-units’ of the given Domain.    

  

3.  The third and more rarely encountered, by us, dialectical-synthesis species-category is that of the ‘‘‘Transcending’’’ kind of dialectical-synthesis units, whose units appear to escape or exit the level within which the ‘thesis-units’ and the ‘antithesis-units’ are mutually, qualitatively opposed and apparently radically distinct.  

An ‘exo-human’ dialectic-of-Nature example of this kind of dialectical-synthesis category unit would be the “anyons paraparticles” category of the dialectical unity of particle ‘Bosonicity’ and/with particle ‘Fermionicity’, whose theoretical, not yet observed “statistics” are located “beyond” both the “Fermi-Dirac statistics” and their, polar-opposite, “Bose-Einstein statistics”[For more, see: F.E.D. Dialectics: THE DIALECTIC of Fermions and/versus Bosons. Part 01.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.].  

A dialectic-of-human-Nature example is that of the later, modern historical synthesis of the initially ancient forms of wage-labor – e.g., in the forms of some ancient civilizations’ paid-soldiering – and/with capital, whose ancient, “antediluvian” forms included merchant capital, usurers’ capital, and slavery-based latifundial agricultural productive capital.  

The modern synthesis of capital and/with wage-labor, the irruption of the capital-wage-labor social relation of social re-production, at length, seeded the “modernist” form of society – industrial-capital-based capitalist society, by far qualitatively and quantitatively transcending the limits of ancient and medieval societies.  

The units of such a ‘dialectical-synthesis category’ are, quite aptly, designated as consisting of NEITHER ‘thesis-units’ or ‘antithesis-units’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Key Place of Religious Freedom in an Equitist Society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           The 

               Key 

                    Place

 

of

 

Religious

Freedom

 

in an

 

Equitist

Society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

It is crucial that ‘‘‘Religious Freedom’’’ – in the full ‘intra-duality’ of its meaning – be «aufheben»-conserved in a successful self-«aufheben»-transition from capitalist society into Equitist-socialist society.

 

An Equitist government – i.e., a ‘political-economic-democratic’ – government, to be such, must collectively and officially take an agnostic position regarding all theisms and atheisms.

 

Thereby, it can sustain the human right of religious liberty from, e.g., the U.S. Constitution, and from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.

 

In this way, an Equitist government can maintain its neutrality relative to all mutually-disputatious religions that may persist among its polity, and also maintain its neutrality vis-à-vis disputes among its religious versus its non-religious Citizens.

 

The meaning of such ‘‘‘Religious Freedom’’’ must encompass the duality of “Freedom of Religion” and “Freedom from Religion”. 

 

That is, Citizens must be free, without state interference, to choose which religion they will adhere to, or even to form a new religion, and those who choose no religion must be free from state imposition upon them of any governmentally “established”, “official” religion; from any “state church”.   

 

The state must also protect non-religious Citizens from coercive impositions upon them by unofficial, non-state-established religions, and must also protect religious Citizens from coercive impositions upon them by non-religious Citizens and civil society institutions.

 

Religious beliefs, though varying at least as widely as spoken natural languages vary, are, like spoken languages a universal phenomenon among Homo sapiens sapiens humans, albeit not an all-humans-inclusive phenomenon. 

 

Religion is not “withering away”, and is not likely to do so, even in a society that has overcome the universal self-alienation – the mandatory “self-selling”, or “universal prostitution” [Marx] – of the wage-labor/capital social relation of production.  We expect that it will not disappear so long as human beings are mortal, all facing the anxiety of the inescapable prospect and foreknowledge of certain death.

 

Given this universality of human religious propensities, to suppress all religion would require a police state.  Likewise, for the state to impose a single state religion upon all Citizens would also require a police state.

 

Many religionists refuse to associate with – or try to coercively proselytize – non-religious Citizens.  Many non-religious Citizens shun religious Citizens.  Many religionists shun other Citizens who have adopted other religions.

 

The best  course of action, we hold, is to collaborate together – non-religious Citizens, Citizens upholding any given religion, and Citizens upholding other religions – in projects of mutual concurrence, and to engage in dialogues about their respective views when there is ‘inter-mutual’ consent to do so.

 

As we see it, those who assert their absolute certainty of the non-existence of a Universal Deity are lying, or are self-deluded.  Likewise, those who assert their absolute certainty that their version of such a Deity exists, must be lying, apart from an experience of personal revelation of that Deity, which may also be self-delusory. 

 

As long as no one can produce absolute proof that no such Deity exists, or absolute proof that such a Deity does exist, we hold that the rational position is the dialectical synthesis of the Theist and A-Theist positions: Agnosticism.

 

If there is a Universal God, then She/He/It must be one Who hides from all collective, public, objective existential verifiability, thereby forcing agnosticism upon rational humanity as the rational alternative, since Deific existence can, so far, neither be proven true nor proven false. 

 

The proposition that “God Exists.”, and the proposition that “God does not exist.”, constitute two contradictory, undecidable propositions, but are not undecidable quite for the usual Gödelian reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!