Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Proudhon’s ‘‘‘Serialism’’’ -- ¿Precursor/Anticipation of the Seldonian Dialectic?









Proudhons ‘‘‘Series-ism’’’ -- ¿Precursor/Anticipation of the Seldonian Dialectic?







Dear Readers,



FYI:  This is a follow-up to our blog-entry, here, of 27 August 2017. 

A passage from a new, 2017 book on Marx’s «Das Kapital» “caught the eye” of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] research community, with a passage on its page 36.

That book is:  Marx’s Inferno:  The Political Theory of Capital, by William Clare Roberts, Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 2017.

This passage intimates the existence of a Fourierist, and a Proudhonist, ‘serial laws’ anticipation of the Seldonian Dialectic, one that may have also influenced Marx in his ‘‘‘systematic-dialectical’’’ construction of his «Das Kapital».

More specifically, this passage intimates that the CHARLES-Fourier-ist, and Proudhonist, concepts of ‘serial laws’ may have anticipated the multi-categorial, poly-qualinomial series qualitative superpositionings’ [“superpositions”, or “sums”, of heterogeneous, qualitatively differing terms -- not of purely quantitative terms, as per JOSEPH Fourier’s famous series], or non-amalgamative sums -- i.e., the multi-ontic cumula -- of ontological-category-representing symbols, as generated by a ‘‘‘Seldon Function’’’ -- i.e., by a self-reflexive function of an «arché» ontological category.

Footnote 63 to William Clare Roberts’ page 36 refers to a passage in another book:  Revolutionary Justice:  The Social and Political Theory of P.-J. Proudhon, by Robert L. Hoffman, University of Illinois Press, 1972, pp. 106-109.

I have reproduced, with commentary [given, below, within brackets, and in magenta-colored text], excerpts from a superset of this passage -- pp. 105-115, below.  I have extracted only the passages that contain this author’s descriptions of the Proudhon’s beliefs, and hopes, about his ‘‘‘serial method’’’, not that author’s criticisms of Proudhon’s attempts at such a method.


The findings of the F.E.D. research on the claims of these passages -- one way or another -- are likely to influence the further development of the content of the www.dialectics.org ‘methodology page’ --




Dialogically Yours,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







[Excerpts from pp. 105-115.  Paragraph breaks modified by M.D.]  Proudhon’s two major books in these years [were] the Système des contradictions économiques and De la Création de l’ordre dans l’humanité...some have thought his methodological efforts here important... .”

“... Like most of those in the intellectual tradition stemming from the French Enlightenment, Proudhon is very much impressed with natural science’s powers of discovery.”

“He is especially drawn to the taxonomic accomplishments of biology, which do not rely on controlled experiment and mathematical analysis, as do developments in the physical [sic] sciences.  He consciously tries to do the same kind of thing for social science.”

[Here comes to mind, from a Seldonian point of view, the question as to whether or not Proudhon considered “social science” taxonomy to be a fixed and eternal one, or a dynamical one, owing to an undergirding ontological dynamism in [human] Nature.]

“The elements of this taxonomy are to be discovered through the observation of social structure in historical development:  “the experience of the past is the science of the future.”  These elements cannot be comprehended independently, but only when put together in a synthesis.  To make the synthesis Proudhon tries ... to adapt the “serial method” of [Charles, not Joseph] Fourier, using it in combination with his own version of dialectic philosophy.”

“While both methods claim an empirical basis in the study of historical process, in fact he concentrates more on contemporary society, with his interpretation of the past based more on that of the present than the other way around.”

[Note thus, in our terms, the ‘synchronic dialectic’ leaning of Proudhon’s attempted method, vis-a-vis ‘diachronic dialectic’.]

“... his conception of humanity’s growth through time is vital to his theory of society.  The conception is one of man making himself through the course of history in a succession of stages.”

[At this level of generalization, we -- and Marx -- are in complete resonance with Proudhon’s, epochal, ‘historical labor of the self-production of humanity’ conception.]

“The stress on mankind’s active role in the process is essential; Proudhon rejects both fatalism and any idea that history is made by exceptional men or by God.”  [So far, so good!]

“His efforts at developing a systematic method turn upon determination of the mechanism by which the historical stages succeed one another.  This would simultaneously define the essential character of social dynamics in any particular stage.” [This at least rings of ‘onto-dynamical immanentism’.].

“In Création de l’ordre he takes notions of an ordered series of connected developments from Fourier, together with an idea of “antinomy” (contradiction) which comes from his reading of Kant, but differs from the German’s conception.  By these he describes a process of historical movement through the interaction of contradictory opposites.  This method he further refines in the Système des contradictions économiques, with a pseudo-Hegelian dialectic employed to complete the theory.”

[Again, from a Seldonian point-of-view, one would want to ask -- ¿where do these opposites supposedly come from?  ¿Are they conceived in eternal, Manichean mutual externality, or is each opposite seen as emergent from within that which it later opposes? -- and finally -- ¿Does this “interaction’ of opposites lead to the possibility of the conservation of both opponents, as well as of the irruption of their “synthesis” as a «tertium quid»?]

“Marx’s dialectical and historical materialism [actually, Marx did not use these terms] is similar in approach though not in execution, but he knows better what a systematic social science should be.  Although it has its own faults, the German’s theory is far more compelling -- as a system.


“... He [Proudhon] says that men must go through the experience of successive historical stages in order to realize how to better order their lives.  They must know through actual experience all the varieties of injustice and contradictory absurdities possible in social relations if they are to understand fully what really is required for justice.  Any particular social structure entails its own peculiar forms of injustice and absurd contradiction, and it does not develop substantially different ones without becoming qualitatively different:  a new set of conditions defines a new stage.  Thus historical change is a succession of significant stages to be passed if progress is to be realized.”

[This account of Proudhon’s views, if correct, highlights an ‘ideal-ist’ tendency in Proudhon’s thought, or at least an uncritically ideological tendency, though it might also be seen to contain seeds of a Marxian, and of what we call a ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’, perspective, of how developing incompatibilities between predominant social relations of production and growing social forces of production, due to the often ‘uncognized’ growth of the latter, are fought out in ideological terms, until, toward the end of the epoch of the predominance of the capital social relation of production, ideology predictedly begins to give way to [Marxian] social science, in and after the transition to the successor system, and the successor social relation of production, to the capital system/relation.  However, it is not only “absurd contradictions”, but psychophysically operative, albeit often ‘uncognized’, objective/subjective human-social “contradictions”, or ‘intra-dualities’, such as that of capital as “self-expanding value” versus capital as ‘self-contracting value’, the latter due to growth-of-the-productive-forces induced ‘technodepreciation’ of fixed capital plant and equipment, that drives the self-transcendence of a given epoch into its successor epoch, one of a new predominant ‘socio-ontology’ -- of a new predominant “social relation of production”.  But a human-social-scientific paradigm of human-historical change as a primarily immanently-driven progression of “substantially different” -- of “qualitatively different”, ‘socio-ontologically different’ -- historically-specific, ‘historical species’ epochs driving themselves to be “passed” /surpassed / transcended is a congenial one, for us, and with Marx.  However, the way in which the ‘“old set of conditions”’ transforms itself, primarily immanently, into the “new set of conditions”, needs to be correctly specified if this paradigm is to work as [dialectical] “social science”.]

“This reflects Proudhon’s conviction that society is a dynamic, constantly changing entity.” [This ‘‘‘rhymes’’’ with Marx’s statement, in his Preface to the first German edition of Capital, Volume I, that “...the present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change, and is constantly changing.”].”

“The change as he conceives it is not merely that of gradual evolution, or growth like an organism’s, where each new form is very like the one preceding and stems directly from it.”

[Note that, as per Karl Seldon, the “new form” may ‘“stem directly from the one preceding’’’, and still be qualitatively, ontologically different from, advanced/progressed with respect to, and supplementarily opposite to, “the one preceding”.  This is the case in a sudden ‘‘‘revolution’’’ within, and punctuating, a preceding, gradual, ‘‘‘evolution’’’, i.e., in an irruption of (a) new ontology -- of an ‘ontological singularity’ -- from out of the continuity of the quantitative growth of the old, preceding ontology, when that growth crosses a definite quantitative threshold.]

“Rather, a society changes by becoming quite another thing than it was -- a dialectic of historical stages.”

[It is not necessary, in forming a theory of a ‘“dialectic of [pre]historical stages”’ of human society, in order to affirm the actuality of the ‘self-other-ization’ kind of change of natural formations [including of human-social formations], to disaffirm the actuality of long periods of the ‘non-other-ization’ kind of change, e.g., of human-social formations.  Indeed, the one kind of change flows into the other kind of change, and vice versa.  The quantitative growth of the social forces of production, progressing at first still within the identity of a given human-social formation, and of its predominant social relations of production ‘socio-ontology’, gives rise, eventually, to an irruptive self-transcendence of that identity of that human-social formation, and to the emergence of new and unprecedented predominant social relations of production ‘socio-ontology’, and, thereby, to a new mode of human-social reproduction, and, thus, to a new, higher form of human society.]

“This is one reason he [Proudhon] rejects not only conservatism and conventional progressivism, but also the utopias of contemporary socialists.  Their utopias are conceived as final, ideal forms, to remain fixed in basic structure if not in detail.  To Proudhon this is no less static than the absolutism of monarchs and Church, and scarcely less likely to prevent continuing human self-actualization.

[¡Kudos to Proudhon on this realization!].


TO BE CONTINUED.







Monday, September 11, 2017

Karl Seldon’s Succinct Formulation Regarding ‘Capitalism’s Fatal Flaw’ and the Phases of Capitalism -- Ascendence Phase [~1500 C.E. to ~ 1900 C.E.] ---> Descendence Phase [ever since]. GLOBAL STRSATEGIC HYPOTHESES.







Karl Seldon’s Succinct Formulation Regarding Capitalisms Fatal Flaw and the Phases of Capitalism -- Ascendence Phase [~1500 C.E to ~1900 C.E.] ---> Descendence Phase [ever since].  GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.







Dear Readers,



It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an Officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, to share with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, key excerpts from the internal writings, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.
Such a release is that entered below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

Earlier entries to this blog which provide evidentiary background for this formulation include --







ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES:  ... The dialectic of capitalism vies in an ‘intra-duality’ of/between capital as “self-expanding value” [Marx], e.g., by reinvestment of profits of enterprise into new industrial capital plant and equipment [“capital formation”/“accumulation”], versus capital as ‘self-contracting value’, e.g., by pre-amortization write off of industrial capital plant and equipment, due to obsolescence depreciation vis-a-vis competitors’ installations, “moral depreciation” [Marx], or ‘technodepreciation’.” 

“Such fixed-capital asset write-offs, part of gross losses, arising prior to any full recovery of the value of the obsolescent capital plant and equipment by means of “wear and tear” depreciation charges -- in the later-capitalist context of accelerating technological progress in fixed capital design, and of ‘capital-plant legacy-less’, because newly industrializing, new entrants into world market competition, who may start with the most advanced capital plant and equipment, as well as with lower wages -- can overwhelm gross profits.”  

“They can drive a secular fall in the rate of return on capital investment for “core” capital, eventually driving those return-rates deep into negative profit territory, in the absence of extraordinary and catastrophic interventions on the part of the core ruling class faction owning the most ownership-concentrated, most ‘technodepreciation-vulnerable’ industries.”

“In the early stages of the development of global capitalist society, growth of ‘product productivity’, i.e., “growth of the social forces of production” [Marx], and therefore also, tendentially, of humanity’s self-productivity’ -- including the self-expansion of objectified human subjectivity, of objectified labor -- in short, the ‘self-expansion of human socio-mass’, tendentially increases rates of returns on capital.”

“This tendency of rising capital-profitability forms the ‘‘‘ascendence phase’’’ of global capitalist society, a phase dominated by “absolute surplus-value” [Marx] as the primary source of profits on capital.”  For a time, “the growth of the social forces of production” adds more new capital than it destroys old capital.”

“The next phase, the ‘‘‘descendence phase’’’ of capitalist humanity, is dominated, instead, by “relative surplus-value” [Marx] as the primary source of profits.” 

“This also means that the self-devaluation of competitive capital, of competing industrial plant and equipment capital-value, becomes an increasingly threatening reality for the owners of core concentrated industrial and loan capital.  For the working class, on the contrary, it lowers costs of living, and tendentially increases our prosperity, forming democracy-demanding “middle class” working classes world-wide, especially in the ‘‘‘capitalist core’’’ nation-states.”

“Beyond a certain stage, this growth of these “social forces of production” puts the capital “social relation of production” in dire jeopardy.  Further growth of this ‘self-reproductive self-force’ of humanity periodically subtracts more old capital-value, by ‘technodepreciation’, than it adds new capital-value, by reinvestment of profits augmented by increased rates of “relative surplus-value”.  It ‘‘‘dis-accumulates’’’ more old capital than it accumulates new capital formations.  It destroys more capital than it creates.”

“The core ruling class “political” and ideological reaction to this, their [circa 1880 C.E.] “top secret”, “economic” discovery that this is the case [e.g., their Nazi/“Eugenics” genocides; their “Third World” underdevelopment-enforcing, poverty-enforcing military dictatorships, funded and armed from the “First World”; their “People Are Pollution” pseudo-Environmentalist “movements”; their Zero [i.e., negative] Population Growth “movements”; their Zero [i.e. negative] Economic Growth “movements”; their “Small Is Beautiful” ideologies; their “Limits to Growth” ideologies, their “95% global population reduction” demand, etc., etc., ad nauseam] creates the ‘‘‘descendence phase’’’ of the capitalist epoch, with all of its acceleratedly-deepening horrors, which surround us, and permeate our lives, today, and which threaten a new and, this time, likely final, ‘“Dark Age”’ -- the self-annihilation of humanity -- if the working class does not awaken to this ruling-class global pogrom in time.”

“This ‘technodepreciation de-profitability’ “law” of capitalism is still a ruling class “top secret”, withheld from most of humanity even today.”

This ‘‘‘descendence’’’ will end either in the accession, of and by the majority of humanity, to ‘Global Renaissance’; to the next higher possible stage of global human society, the one that we call ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’, or it will end in ‘‘‘the mutual ruin of the contending classes’’’ [Marx and Engels], i.e., in the ‘self-extinction’ of the human «species». ...







Saturday, September 09, 2017

Part 06 -- ‘The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole’.







Part 06 -- The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole.







Dear Readers,



FYI:  Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] has, recently, continued the postings, to the Application Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, of a new series of JPEG images, presenting The [Meta-] Systematic, Presentational Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole, by means of a sequence of [ostensively] improving NQ_ dialectical-mathematicalmeta-models of the [tables of] contents of Marx’s immanent critique thereof, both completed and planned --



For your convenience, I have also posted this sixth group of images in this new series below.


ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison, and
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.
























Friday, September 08, 2017

Part 05 -- ‘The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole’.







Part 05 -- The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole.







Dear Readers,



FYI:  Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] has, recently, continued the postings, to the Application Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, of a new series of JPEG images, presenting The [Meta-] Systematic, Presentational Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole --



For your convenience, I have also posted this fifth group of images in this new series below.


ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison, and
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

























Monday, September 04, 2017

Part 04 -- ‘The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole’.







Part 04 -- The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole.







Dear Readers,



FYI:  Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] has, today, continued the postings, to the Application Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, of a new series of JPEG images, presenting The [Meta-]Systematic, Presentational Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole --



For your convenience, I have also posted this fourth group of images in this new series below.


ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

























Saturday, September 02, 2017

Part 03 -- ‘The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole’.







Part 03 -- The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole.







Dear Readers,



FYI:  Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] has, today, continued the postings, to the Application Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, of a new series of JPEG images, presenting The [Meta-]Systematic, Presentational Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole --



For your convenience, I have also posted this third group of images in this new series below.


ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.


























Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Part 02 -- ‘The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole’.








Part 02 -- The Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole.







Dear Readers,



FYI:  Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] has, today, continued the postings, to the Application Page of the www.dialectics.org web site, of a new series of JPEG images, presenting The [Meta-]Systematic, Presentational Dialectic of Marx’s Critique of Capitalist Political-Economics as a Whole --



For your convenience, I have also posted this second pair of images in this new series below.


ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.