F.E.D. Dialectics

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

¿In What Sense do Objects of Value “Contain” Labor-Time?

¿In What

Sense

Objects

of Value

“Contain”

Labor-

Time?

Dear Reader,

¿In what sense do objects of human valuing – objects “produced” by human labor, and that have use-value, “value”, exchange-value and price – “contain” the labor-time that produced them?

The metaphor of human labor-time “containment” in commodity-objects is encountered frequently in Marx’s discourses on his “law of value”, in his immanent critique of the capitalist ideology/science of “political economy”.

Well, first of all, it does not mean that the aggregate of human labor-hours that were spent on “working-up” raw material – material not produced by human labor, but, instead, produced by pre-human/exo-human Nature – that were applied in the individual history of each individual commodity-object – are “contained” inside that commodity-object.

For a present such commodity-object, that labor-time counts as so “contained” only to the extant of the average abstract labor-time socially necessary to reproduce that object presently, given the presently prevailing level of the social force of its production, in the field of production under which it falls, as reflected, albeit in a complex manner, in its presently-prevailing price. Any labor-hours applied in its individual case, above and beyond that social average, does not count as “contained in it”, or as adding to its value/price.

If, by today, an innovation has spread society-wide that enables units of that same object-kind to be produced, on average, within half the generic labor-hours it took to make that object a year before, then each unit of an inventory of that object, produced, e.g., the year before, “suddenly”, “instantaneously”, i.e., given price-competition in its market, against such objects produced today, will have its value, and its price, drop accordingly, despite the average number of generic labor-hours actually applied, per unit, in its batch.

Sometimes one might get the feeling that the abstract labor-time “contained” in a produced commodity-object represents something like the “time-binding” of which Korzybski wrote. But the amount of abstract labor-time “bound into” a given unit of commodity-product is not a locally measurable quantity of generic labor-hours. Its effective amount depends on market competition – is, in effect, influenced by the “action at a distance” of generic labor-hours “cost of production” of similar, competitively-equivalent commodity-objects, produced “at a distance”, elsewhere.

The human “working-up” [Marx] of raw materials, into a finished commodity product, sometimes “sounds”, in Marx’s discourse, like an addition of “order”, of a, to humans, use-valuable kind, a ‘negentropy-added’ form of “value-added”.

However, in terms of saleable price, that “negentropy-value” is contingent upon the amount of economic value added per unit by the production of such commodity-objects elsewhere, even if the ‘order-added’ to the raw material, and the ‘use-value-added’ is the same there.

The ‘labor-value-added’ requires that, in the same process, there must be a specific use-value-added – that, whatever the amount of generic labor-time added, that labor-time added must add to the use-value of each unit of the commodity-objects output for a specific use, relative to that use-value for the inputs to its production, or no economic value will be added.

However, given rising productivity, or rising “productive force”, in that branch of production, the same ‘use-value-added’ will “contain” less ‘exchange-value-added’, less ‘price-added’ by the generic-labor-time-added, than that for commodity-objects of the same kind produced earlier, before the rise in the “productive force” of their production.

Thus, the “abstract, presently socially-necessary labor-time” metaphor of labor-time “containment” has to be carefully couched within key exceptions if it is to be made apt.

General inflation also takes its toll on consumers, for many kinds of commodity-objects all-at-once, by raising unit-prices of commodity-kinds across-the-board, even despite falling socially-necessary abstract-labor-time ‘containings’.

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!

Monday, April 27, 2026

STEADY DENSITIES -- ‘Regenerism’ &/vs. “Steady State Theory”. Part 6. of the Series on the ‘Regenerist Hypothesis’.

STEADY

DENSITIES --

‘Regenerism’

and/versus

“Steady State Theory”.

Part 6. of the

Series on the

‘Regenerist

Hypothesis’.

Dear Reader,

In thinking about the Seldonian ‘Self-Resurging Big Surge’ Hypothesis – which we also call ‘The Spandetron Hypothesis’ about “Dark Energy”, or ‘The Regenerist Hypothesis’ on the thermodynamic self-regeneration of our cosmos, we find it interesting to consider it in relation to the modern models of the “Steady State” theories in cosmology.

These “steady state” models emerged in the 1940s in published work, and even as early as 1931 in an unpublished manuscript by Albert Einstein, which he decided not to publish.

“Steady state” theory was designed to reconcile the observed, Hubble, expansion of the universe with a static universe in the sense that the observable part of the universe would “forever” look the same from any time of observation, and from any place of observation: thus an eternal observable universe, with no beginning and no end, hence an already infinitely old universe. It met the preferences of ‘parmenideanoid’ “scientists”, whose archaic mentalities wanted as much of the “immutable” and the “eternal” as could be reconciled with physical observations of the actual cosmos.

“Steady State” models [including the later “Quasi-Steady State”, or “QSS”, models, published in 1993, aimed to reconcile “eternal” ‘staticism’ with later observations that contradicted the initial “Steady State” models] posit a continuous creation of new ordinary matter [what we call ‘Bright Matter’, because of its affinity with photonic and electrically-charged electromagnetism, in contrast to “Dark Matter”], so that the density of that matter would not be diluted by the Hubble expansion of space, i.e., so that new such matter fills in as older matter moves away with space self-expansion, keeping the energy-density of ordinary matter Constant.

The opposing, rival “Big Bang” models, emerging in the same period, granted, on the contrary, that ordinary [‘Bright’] matter is Diluted in terms of its density [mass/spatial volume] by the Hubble self-expansion of space.

Ironically enough, and dialectically enough, as we shall see, the Seldonian ‘Self-Resurging Big Surge’ model, i.e., our ‘Regenerist’ model – of the ‘Thermodynamic Self-Regeneration of our Cosmos in the Dialectic of Nature’ –

exhibits affinities with aspects of both of these, opposing, cosmological models, forming an unexpected, triadic, ‘ideo-ontological-categorial’ dialectic, as diagrammed in the ‘dialectogram’ posted above.

Per that, ‘Regenerist’, model, not ‘Bright Matter’, and not “Dark Matter” either, but the energy density of “empty” space, i.e., of the expanse of incessantly self-replicating, hence space-expanding, ‘spandetron’ Planck-scale quanta, thus do exhibit continuous creation, as continuous self-reproduction, and do, indeed, thereby, maintain the energy-density of the thus self-expanding “empty” space in Constancy, or near-Constancy, in a rate of spatial self-expansion which is modulated and moderated by the energy-density of proximate matter, “Dark” and ‘Bright’ alike.

However, both “Dark” and ‘Bright’ mass-energy are continually Diluted – now, once again, at an accelerating rate, in their energy-density – by that ‘spandetrons’-driven self-expansion of space.

Per that, ‘Regenerist’, model, once the dilution of matter energy-density crosses a critical threshold, the rate of acceleration of spatial self-expansion will once again return to that exhibited in the earlier, so-called “Cosmological Inflation” incident.

That, with the excession of the limiting velocity of spatial self-expansion, will cause a renewed self-damaging of cloud-halos of thereby denatured ‘spandetrons’, no longer ‘anti-gravitic’, but ‘gravitic’ instead, and no longer able to self-replicate, and also, e.g., gravitically, inhibiting the rate of self-replication of the main ‘spandetron expanse’, still intact.

That is, these, self-damaged ‘meta-spandetrons’ are, per the ‘R’ model, the substance of “Dark Matter”.

The cosmos will thus be flooded, after that critical spatial self-expansion velocity limit is breached, with new thermodynamic free-energy, in the form of “Dark Matter” mass-energy, that will soon, in turn, partly «aufheben» ‘meta-monad-ize’ again, as new, ‘meta-meta-spandetron’ ‘Bright Matter’ mass-energy as well.

Thus, as indicated in the ‘dialectogram’ posted herewith, the ‘Regenerist’ model is a dialectical ‘complex unity’ of the two, major, preceding cosmological models – the “Steady State” model and the “Big Bang” model.

But the ‘Regenerist’ model is an anti-Steady-State model, just as much as it is an anti-Big-Bang model. The “Steady-State” model is a model of eternal universal stasis for our observable universe.

The ‘Regenerist’ model, on the contrary to both of its predecessor models, is a model of, not even “cyclical”, but of a qualitatively-changing, not just quantitatively changing, helical-vortical pattern; a model of ongoingly unprecedented, ultimately irrepetitive, universal self-transformation.

www.dialectics.info

and

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

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!

Saturday, April 25, 2026

Some Possible Triggers for ‘The Great Transition’ and ‘Global Renaissance’. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Some

Possible

Triggers

for

‘The Great

Transition’

and

‘Global Renaissance’.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

¿What, given the conditions we know today, are some likely triggers for the transition from the capitalist system to – if successful – its higher successor system, which we call ‘Political-Economic Democracy’, and to the, first-ever, ‘Global Renaissance’, on planet Terra, that, we hold, will issue from that ‘Great Transition’?

1. Marx’s view, as written out by him in a key passage of the Grundrisse [Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Nicolaus, pp. 749-750] –

– was that the capitalist system would be ‘“given advice to be gone’’’ [would be delegitimated in the eyes of the majority class], by its regularly recurring uncontrolled crises, breaking out despite the wishes of the, otherwise powerful, capitalist ruling class, and of the rest of the rest of the, world market, population. Marx had planned to devote the final volume of the at least six treatises on his immanent critique of the political economy of the capitalist system to the topic of the “World Market and [Its] Crises”.

Marx also saw, as explicated in volume three of the first of those six treatises, entitled “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”, that the rise of producers’ cooperatives, owned and managed by their workers, would ‘protoically’ prepare the ground for that higher successor system to the capitalist system [Karl Marx, Capital, Volume III, Part V, Chapter XXVII] –

However, after the circa 1870 to 1890 “Great Deflation” traumatically educated the capitalist ruling class on the aptness of Marx’s ‘“Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit [on Capital] to Fall”’, its ruling faction hatched a plot to defeat that “Law”, which came to fruition with their imposition of the “Federal Reserve” in the U.S., and with that of the Federal Income Tax in 1913, and with their imposition of World War I in 1914, that they planned so as to destroy the rapidly rising industrial productive forces of Germany and of its allied nation-states.

Those institutional tools – especially the “Federal Reserve” – enabled that ruling faction to not eliminate but to weaponize capitalist economic crises; to control the onset and impact of economic crises, designing them so that the majority class bore their brunt, and so that advantages accrued to that ruling faction, e.g., enabling them to buy-out the crisis-bankrupted enterprises and capital assets of rival capitalists for the proverbial “pennies on the dollar”.

2. This has led us to the consideration that capitalist-ruling-faction orchestrated economic crises, and continual exponential inflation, in the U.S., via the Federal Reserve, would, at length, awaken the majority class worldwide to realize, albeit “groggily”, the machinations of that ruling faction, so catastrophic for that majority class, and trigger a push-back by the majority class.

The 1930s push-back against the “Great Depression” wrought the Rooseveltian “New Deal” in the United States.

The Twenty-First Century’s “Great Recession” brooked a populist revolt worldwide, bringing Brexit, the ascension of the Trump faction to the U. S. Presidency twice, and the rise of the “National Rally” party in France, and the “Alternative for Germany” party in Germany, etc.

It is unclear whether these populist revolts will be able to eventuate in the ‘Great Transition’ to the higher-democratic successor-system to the capitalist system.

Many of the partisans of the MAGA/MAHA movement in the United States are mired in Christianoid mysticisms, and place their allegiance to the capitalist system second only to their allegiance to the Christian God.

To see their way to the successor system of higher democracy, they would have to recognize the inherent limits of the capitalist system, specifically Marx’s realization of the capitalist system’s “Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall”. But they continually denounce a “Marxism” that they only know as the Leninoid fraud, which they rightly denounce, but are, by that naming, also blocked from considering Marx’s scientific results.

The MAGA movement, and the MAGA leaders, also generally do not realize that the capitalist ruling class faction that the Trump Faction is working to defeat is, not just “greedy for wealth/power/sexual exploitation”, but ‘HUMANOCIDAL’, intent on eliminating “95%” of the human race, in order that they might stay in power. Perhaps some of those leaders know this, but are afraid to state it openly, and to campaign on it, because of what has happened to other leaders who have effectively communicated about it to the general public. My informal discussions with other majority class workers suggest that many of the base of the MAGA movement are aware of the ruling faction’s plans for enforced “population reduction”. It is the reality of Marx’s “Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall” that has, step-by-step, driven that ruling faction ultimately to this ‘humanocidal’ resolve. In their own words –

Capitalism's Fatal Flaw, and the Way Forward: 'Rocke-Nazi' Plutocracy Publicly Proclaims Planned Planetary Population Plummeting. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

3. However, there has now – i.e., very recently, and very suddenly – loomed into view a new potential trigger for ‘The Great Transition’ – new upsurging growth in the “social forces of production” [Marx], despite the ‘Rocke-Nazi’ ruling faction’s massive efforts to stop that growth, and to reverse it; an upsurge in the ‘human-societal self-reproductive self-force’ which could, as per Marx’s fundamental principle, force a revolution in the “social relations of production”.

3. A. The BRICS, etc. Despite the efforts of the Rocke-Nazis’ servant-dictators to create a permanent “Third World” or “Fourth World”, most of those servant-dictators have been overthrown, and the former “Third World” is rapidly industrializing, surging the growth of the “social forces of production” there again, obsoleting, and threatening with techno-depreciation, much of the remaining, legacy industrial fixed capital plant and equipment in the “First World”.

3. B. The looming actualization of Fusion Power. Now that private entrepreneurs have taken the lead in fusion R&D, away from ‘Rocle-Nazi’-whore governments, the progress toward commercial fusion electricity generation is rapidly accelerating. The mere launching of the first commercial fusion power electric plants could tank the capital equity stock valuations of oil company capital shares, and ultimately threaten the ‘Oil Oligarchy’ and their ‘Global Dictatorship of Petroleum’ with rapid bankruptcy, financial ruin, and dethroning from global power. That Oligarchy’s desperate, draconian actions in panicked attempts to avert that ruin could trigger a reaction from the majority class that would electorally overthrow that oligarchy, and clear the way for ‘The Great Transition’.

3. C. AI Android Robot Workers. The rapid development of generative AI LLM ‘software robots’ in the last few years, and the prospects that they will become the “brains” of a “physical” android robot workforce, may lead to a drastic surge in productivity, and in unemployment in the “First World”, among “white collar” workers even more than “blue collar workers”. This vast robotic-fixed-capital upsurge in the “social forces of production” could force the majority class to move to electorally implement an equally-drastic transformation in the presently-predominating “social relation of production”, i.e., in the capital-/wage-labor-social-relation-of-production, as a trigger driving ‘The Great Transition’. Remember what Marx noted in volume III of Capital [Capital, volume III, Part III, Chapter XV, IV. Supplementary Remarks] –

“A development of the productive forces which would diminish the absolute number of labourers, i.e., enable the entire nation to accomplish its total production in a shorter time span [M.D.: i.e., in a shorter span of aggregate human labor time], would cause a revolution, because it would put the bulk of the population out of the running.”