Friday, December 28, 2012

Part 8 of 8 -- The Equitists' "Malady and Remedy" Manifesto.



Dear Readers,

This blog-entry contains the eighth and final part of my serialization, within this blog, of the Equitist Advocacy Group's groundbreaking manifesto entitled "Malady and Remedy:  What's Wrong, and What to Do About It", with my own edits added to their text, for its improvement [at least, I think so!]. 

In my opinion, this text is too important to be treated as any kind of "sacred text".

It needs to be "improved upon", and circulated, «samizdat», worldwide, in such "improved" forms -- i.e., in as many versions as are seen as being needed, by every author who thinks that [s]he can "improve" upon it [including this one].

I have even added a contiguous passage, marked with my initials below.

Here is a link to the original version, including to its "endnotes" --

http://equitism.org/Equitism/Equitism-entry.htm

http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/MaladyAndRemedy/MaladyAndRemedy.htm


Regards,

Miguel





GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES: 
TOWARD A STRATEGY FOR HUMANITY.



  Prescription: What To Do About It  
[commenced and concluded].


[begin M.D.]: 

"We of the Equitist Advocacy group reject violence as a method of social progress.

Nonviolence is a key to the effectiveness of efforts for social improvement.  For violence corrupts its initiators, converting them, even if their violence is "successful", into but the new incumbents of the very evil that they had intended to overthrow, thus resulting, for them, in a defeat which could not be more total."


As the core plutocracy tightens their noose upon global humanity, mass demonstrations -- such as those that have already arisen in Greece, in Spain, in Italy, in France, and even in the U.K. and the U.S., some in association with the Global Peoples' Assemblies Movement, and with the Occupy Wall Street Movement -- but of increasing amplitude, are likely.  

The core plutocracy may increasingly use these demonstrations as an excuse for mass arrests of the "terrorists", the citizens who participate in those demonstrations, for the escalation of maiming, crippling, and lethal violence against those citizens, for declarations of "national emergency" and "martial law", and for the initial inception of their planned "Eugenics" ["concentration"] camps.

The grisly spectacle of Syria -- of a 'servant-dictatorship' turning its core-plutocracy-supplied guns, tanks,  artillery, jet bombers, and core-plutocracy-trained secret police mass assassination squads, against its own people, their homes, their cities, and their children -- may represent a kind of "dress rehearsal" for the tactics planned later for Greece, for Spain, for Italy, and for France, as well as for the U.K. and the U.S.:  'stealth genocide' -- through mass-murderous "austerity" and financial-plutocracy-induced impoverishment -- becoming open genocide.

The people of Syria were seduced by the democratic moment of the "Arab Spring" uprising -- which the 'Rocke-Nazis' and the 'Rothe-Nazis' are now usurping as a mere means to transition to new, "updated", "modernized" 'servant-dictatorships' in much of the Middle East -- into beginning an initially non-violent, peaceful-mass-demonstrations-of-citizens-based democratic revolution of their own.

The core-plutocracy-controlled, so-called "international community" has, since Assad's genocide began, left the Syrian people high and dry, the core plutocracy merely voyeuring upon Assad's mass murder of the Syrian people, as they did during their earlier-contrived genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, continuing to supply Assad with the arms needed to continue the slaughter, and endeavoring to squeeze out as much "population reduction" as possible from the Syrian "civil war", before they finally intervene, only to install a new, "updated", "modernized" 'servant-dictatorship' in Syria.

The kind of draconian "austerity" "shock treatment" being tested round-after-round, year-after-year, upon, e.g., Greece, the very homeland and "founding-ground" of "Western Civilization", is already an accelerated form of "population reduction" -- of "stealth genocide" -- as can be seen also in the post-Stalinist, "shock treatment" devolution of Russia.

When draconian "austerity" is imposed by the plutocracy, with the excuse of "sovereign over-indebtedness", an indebtedness manipulated into existence by Goldman Sachs, and other core plutocracy "bubble-engineering" financial institution agents -- when pensions are cut -- or cut-off altogether -- wages slashed, homes confiscated -- and masses rendered homeless -- jobs eliminated for nearly half the working population or more, especially for the young, it is not just hardship that is imposed:  people die as a direct and indirect result.  It is mass death that is imposed, particularly, at first, among the elderly.  It is "population reduction" that is imposed.  It is Rockefeller "eugenics" that is imposed.  

"Austerity" is a core plutocracy euphemism for what is in fact 'stealth genocide', 'stealth eugenics'.

This global tightening of the financial and economic noose that the core plutocracy has placed around the neck of the rest of humanity, carried on by its many agents -- the IMF, the World Bank, the "Fed", the National and Supra-National "Central Banks", the EU, etc. -- is bound to provoke a public backlash.

The core plutocracy knows that only too well, and they are prepared -- and are preparing -- for it, as we write.

They have already repealed -- de facto -- the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, e.g., via the "USA Patriot Act" -- in truth, the 'USA Traitor Act' -- and via the institutionalization and "legalization" of "warrantless wiretapping", of NSA robot-surveillance of every e-mail message and every phone-call, of the "warrantless" stealth searches of citizens' homes, of "indefinite detention" of citizens, without charge, without recourse to the courts, without habeas corpus, and of '''extra-judicial execution of citizens by executive order''' -- and also have de facto repealed, or are de facto repealing, the homologous civil liberties laws all over Europe, all "justified" via "Burning of the Reichstag" false-flag exercises such as 911, as well as by other means.

Massive recent purchases of "dum dum" bullets -- which kill via massive bleeding and organ damage against which no medical intervention can avail -- by U.S. agencies such as NOAA and the Social Security Administration, as well as by the "Department of Homeland Security" Gestapo, have been reported.

The 'Rocke-Nazi' orchestrated "Fiscal Cliff" soap opera in the U.S. may be designed to provide cover for the core plutocracy to trigger a new, drastically-deeper phase of their bubble-engineered 'Global Great Depression II', a la the 1931 Rothschild Credit-Anstalt default trigger, that plunged the global financial system into the pit of 1933, and beyond, during their engineered 'Global Great Depression I'.

Of course, the core plutocracy and its agencies will attempt to disarm the populace, as much as possible, before they impose their planned state-capitalist, "eugenocidal" police states worldwide.   

They will "create incidents" and mass media juggernauts to drive public opinion to accept de facto repeals, e.g., of the U. S. Bill Of Rights' Second Amendment.

In this context, we recommend that the movement of protest against the atrocities of "austerity" that are being imposed in Europe, in the U.S., and worldwide, focus upon peaceful mass demonstrations, avoiding any initiation of mass violence.

Of course, the agents of the core plutocracy will initiate violence, and will attempt to provoke a violent reaction from demonstrators.  

Such provocations provide opportunities for these agencies of the plutocracy to apply their crippling and maiming "technologies", and their "population reduction" methods -- and to "justify" martial law, etc. 

Given all of this, we recommend immediate -- and increasing -- recourse to methods of effective protest that do not require citizens to expose themselves to maiming, mayhem, and murder on the streets, by the core plutocracy's proto-police-state apparatuses. 

Mass boycotts of the products and "services" of the plutocracy-owned mega-corporations -- oil companies, financial corporations, [pseudo-]food companies, [pseudo-medicine] pharmaceutical drug companies ['lethal side-effects and autism companies'], mass media corporations, etc. -- that are prostituting the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to impose their "eugenocide" via draconian "austerity", etc.-- can still exercise tremendous leverage over the core plutocracy, hitting them where they "live".  

[end M.D.] 


 

The mission of the Equitist Advocacy group is to help catalyze the popular movement to implement a re-foundation of global human society upon the principles of 'generalized equity'.


We seek to accomplish this mission by promoting the promulgation of 'Equitarian' constitutional amendments, of their enabling legislation, and of the democratic election of candidates committed to their implementation.


This implementation is designed to create, at length, a transition from the darkening present, to a far brighter future.


The 'Equitarian Reform' that we propose is designed to drive a social transition out of the increasingly unjust, 'in-equitarian', incipiently totalitarian, multi-genocidal, [state-/private-]capitalist, monopolist/oligopolist/plutocratic political-economy of the present.

The 'Equitarian Reform' is designed to drive a social transition in to an 'Equitarian', comprehensively democratic political-economy, founded upon the constitutional establishment of four new species of social, universal, fundamental, human-rights-based equity.


These four new species of socio-economic equity arise in the supersession of, and as necessary supplementary opposition to, the existing, first, and original species of equity:  capital-equity.


That is, that single, presently-elaborated species of equity is, by name, 'internality-equity', the capital-equity stockholder-rights-based, ownership-rights-based principle of "one share, one vote"; of economic-equity stockholder democracy, however much that principle may be, presently, honored mainly "in the breach".
 




 

The four additional classes of socio-economic and political equity — proposed to you, by the Equitist Advocacy group — can be briefly characterized as follows [For an extended exposition of these new categories of equity, see "Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism:  Political-Economic Democracy."] [e22]: 

  • 'Citizen Externality Equity' — This new species of citizen equity is proposed for implementation via a constitutional requirement that each local operating unit of each enterprise that imposes significant "externalities" or "external costs" upon its local public(s) — e.g., toxic pollution — must incorporate a democratically-elected, locally-elected, publicly-elected, public board of public directors, counterpart to the existing, standard, local "management committee", or "local governing board", appointed by the enterprise's head office private board of directors, with the public board and the private board, thus, having co-authority over the annual 'externalities operating budget' of that local operating unit, with recourse to a special tribunal in the event of deadlock.

    The resulting structure of enterprise board governance would no longer be "uni-cameral"; we would have transformed it into a "bi-cameral" structure.
We members of the "grassroots" voting public, especially those of us local to each such externalities-generating enterprise, may be impacted — often fatally — by the externalities output of that enterprise. However, today, under present social relations, we have little recourse. We have little recourse, unless we own the offending capital, or unless we can afford to finance costly-and-uncertain litigation under capital-equity as the dominant form of '''social''' equity, against often “ultra-deep-pocketed” corporate opponents.
The second "houses", the new, "popular houses" of the popularly-elected public-directors will give every participating member of the "grassroots", voting public:  (1) a voice in setting the annual "budget" of such externalities that each such local operating unit is legally permitted to produce, (2) a voice in setting the rate of taxation for the 'externalities taxes' that each such local operating unit would be legally required to pay for the externalities that it is still permitted to impose upon the public, and upon its environment in general, and (3) a voice in the allocation of the new public revenues so generated, for the remediation of the social damages induced by those externalities still allowed, etc.

  • 'Citizen Birthright Equity' — This new species of citizen equity is proposed for implementation via a constitutional requirement which establishes that each and every child born into equitable society shall be endowed, by that society, with a lifetime social trust fund, sufficient to support the expected lifetime healthcare, education, home purchase, retirement pension, and other social-baseline life necessities of that new citizen, with that individual's disposition rights over those societal funds pre-defined and regulated so as to avert their misuse, and so as to mitigate the potential “moral hazards” involved therein.

    These 'Citizen Birthright' trust funds would be financed by a tax, on the 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' use of social property — e.g., on socially-owned production plant and equipment, ceded by society-as-a-whole, for use by a given, particular stewardship enterprise. This tax would, thus, constitute a '''social rent''' for those stewards' use of social property, designed to generate funds for the maintenance and expansion of societal self-investment, both human and instrumental, as well as to incentivize Citizen Stewardship Equity cooperative enterprises to economize on their consumption of means of production.

  • 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' — This new species of citizen equity is designed to give the associated producers direct access to means of production, thereby gradually supplanting and superseding the capital-relation -- which is founded upon the denial of direct access to means of production for the producers -- by superseding the wagéd-labor and salaried-labor relationships, which latter form the core of the capital-relation.  This new species of equity 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 collective 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 producers’-association, as collective self-employer, by a local, public, social bank, itself also a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' co-stewardship association, 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 — typically 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, producing “the same” similar products and services.

    The expected tendencies — of some of the Steward's assemblies, of some of the Stewardship-based socialized producers' cooperatives — to damage their local publics for their own separate gain, e.g., in monetary income terms, by, for example, imposing pollution externalities, to reduce their internal costs of production, upon those portions of the public which reside in proximity to such cooperatives' operations, would be checked by action of the 'Externality-Equity'-based public boards of directors elected, by the public, to the bi-cameral self-management organs of each such Stewardship cooperative.

    The new 'Externality Equity' rights of the public must apply to such socialized producers' cooperatives, thus interacting with the new 'Stewardship Equity' rights of all citizens, as well as to any remaining capitalist enterprises — whether private-capital-based, or joint-stock-based — equally.

    We are indebted, for key aspects of the this 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' concept, to David Schweickart, via his books Against Capitalism, and After Capitalism, though the ways in which we have appropriated the ideas expressed therein is entirely our responsibility / have not been vetted with him. [e23]

  • 'Citizen Allocational Equity' — names the constitutional requirement that the proceeds of the social self-investment fund, generated by the '''social rents''' on the value of social property — e.g., production plant and equipment allocated to Citizen Stewardship Enterprises — granted by society for use in stewardship by qualified enterprise-level '''associations-of-producers'''/'''socialized producers' cooperatives''', will be allocated to the various geographical localities of the social territory on an equal per-citizen, per-capita basis. This requirement is designed to ensure that equal populations of citizens receive equal opportunities to contribute to, and, thus, to partake in, the production of human and natural biospheric prosperity by human society as a whole. This constitutional requirement might be subject to certain temporary "corrections of the past", designed to undo the adverse social consequences of past inequities of wealth and opportunity allocation, to the extent that such temporary reparations-allocations are approved by majority votes in popular referenda.




How the Equitarian Reform Obviates the 'Technodepreciation' Dilemma of the Capitalist / Wage-Laborist System

We envision a popularly-elected 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', constrained and regulated also by the popularly-elected legislature, to administer the provision of means of production to qualifying 'Stewardship Equity' associations of producers.


This Office should be a publicly-elected administrative entity, and should not be a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' socialized producers cooperative.


The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should not need to "turn a profit".


Therefore, "losses" due to 'technodepreciation' can be safely absorbed by the budget of this central custodial institution.


The 'Stewardship Equity' associations should thereby be shielded from such losses.


The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should mediate the purchase, for each "plant and equipment"-using 'Stewardship Cooperative association', or 'socialized producers cooperative', of the "plant and equipment", and of any training in its use, required by that producers cooperative, from other 'Stewardship association' socialized producers cooperatives that produce such "plant and equipment", under contract to the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property'.


The Office should procure and supply that "plant and equipment", and those training services, both initially, at start-up, and also when "wear and tear" physical depreciation, or technological "moral depreciation", require "plant and equipment"/skills replacement or upgrade.
 

It is in the interest of human society as a whole to upgrade the standards / "best practices", in terms of "plant and equipment"-embodied technology, rapidly throughout an entire branch of social wealth production, once a new standard / "best practice" technology clearly emerges in that branch.
 

It is also in the interest of society as a whole that individual 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises experience incentives to continue to innovate -- to continue to develop “the social forces of production” [Marx].
 

¿If such an enterprise is forced to share its inventions, with competing 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, through such branch-wide technology standards/"best practices" upgrades, does that not destroy the innovating 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise's incentive to continue to innovate?


One part of the incentive for a given 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprise to continue to innovate, given that the Citizen Stewards, who are the producers, are in charge of the enterprise, takes the form of the rewards of reducing the producers' necessary working time — and with it, of reducing the length of their working days — through the invention of truly '''labor-saving''' technologies, truly applied as such.
 

That incentive persists regardless of whether other, competing Stewardship enterprises share that same technology, and that same "disposable time" benefit, or not.
 

Moreover, a successfully-innovating, productivity-enhancing Stewardship enterprise will enjoy the profits-advantages of its superior productivity [profits that are divided into equal shares among all of its member-Stewards], vis-á-vis its competing, non-innovated Stewardship enterprises, until its innovation qualifies for a branch-wide standards/"best-practices" upgrade/transition, e.g., as adjudicated by the [popularly-elected, popularly-recallable] justices of the 'Social Property Court(s)', i.e., until the general adoption of its innovation throughout its branch.


The principles of 'economic-democratic' Social Policy at work here include the following:
  1. Proven technological innovations / productivity advances — the fruits of "universal labor" — should be diffused as rapidly as possible throughout the social economy.
  2. 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprises — 'socialized producers cooperatives' — are intended to compete principally on customer service quality, and on price, not primarily on technology.


For example, there is no great social benefit in driving such an enterprise to bankruptcy simply because another competing such enterprise "beats it to the punch" in implementing a technology-based advance in productivity, as long as the former, initially 'non-innovated' enterprise — but now using the [new] standard/"best-practices" "plant and equipment" and training -- remains competitive on price and customer service quality.

The social objective of the conservation of inter-enterprise market competition in equitarian society is to avert the severe degradation of customer service quality, and the abusive escalation of prices, that are both so characteristic of private-monopoly, and of state-monopoly, capitalist enterprises.

Any 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise should have a legal cause of action, if it members feel threatened with insolvency, and consequent unemployment / self-redeployment to other / new Stewardship enterprises for its members -- or even if they merely feel that their Stewards' /- members' profits-sharing is being markedly diminished -- by innovation(s) in the means of production, including in skill-sets, fielded by one or more of its competing Stewardship enterprises.
 
Of course, it must prove that its “feelings” are empirically accurate, in the special 'Social Property Court(s)', if the case that it has brought to Court is to prevail.
 
If it does not prevail, it will incur the costs of the court proceedings that it initiated.
 

That is, such an enterprise should have the right to "bring" this "cause of action" before the popularly-elected, popularly-recallable jurists of the 'Social Property Court(s)', to see if it can prevail upon the jury of the Court to order a '''standards / best practices transition''' for its branch of wealth production.
 

Such a '''transition''' order would generalize the innovation of its competitor(s) to all other Stewardship enterprises competing in the same branch as well, the plaintiff enterprise included.
 

"Prevailing" in such a case, obtaining such a "standards/best-practices transition" order, would activate the 'techno-depreciation insurance' coverages, for '''retooling and retraining''', of all adversely-impacted enterprises in the branch, including of the plaintiff enterprise — of all such enterprises, holding "plant and equipment" social property, in stewardship, that would, by that order, be declared "obsolete". 

All Stewardship Equity Enterprises wishing to be protected by this ‘technodepreciation insurance’ coverage would pay a monthly premium to defray the social costs of this insurance.
 

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' would be engaged by that court order.
 

That Office would then arrange for the production of new standard / best practices "plant and equipment" for all of the consenting, ‘technodepreciation-insured’, obsolete-"plant-and- equipment"-holding enterprises in that branch, by contracting with Stewardship enterprises that specialize in production of such means of production.
 

That Office would deliver the contractual allotments of the resulting new social property / means of production thus procured, after its production was completed, to each of those ‘technodepreciation-insured’ obsolete "plant and equipment" holders, in exchange for their obsolete "plant and equipment" holdings, and together with any requisite training programs, for their Citizen Stewards, in the safe and effective use of the new standard / "best practices" means of production.
 

All of the entailed procurement costs should be at the expense of the budget of the Office, as partially defrayed by the 'technodepreciation insurance' premiums’ proceeds from the affected, covered enterprises.
 

The timing, and the scope-of-impact, of technological innovations in the Equitarian social context, as in the preceding Capitalist social context, involve uncertainty.


Therefore all 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, holding current "branch-standard"/"best-practices" social property in Stewardship, might be required, by action of the electorate, or of its elected legislature, to maintain 'technodepreciation insurance' policies, via periodic payment of premiums to the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property'.  Or not:  purchase of such insurance might be left as an option for each Stewardship Equity Cooperative to decide upon, by majority vote of its entire citizen stewards membership.
 

The goal of a technodepreciation insurance requirement might be to insure that sufficient productive resources were set-aside, and held in reserve at all times — resources sufficient to facilitate rapid response to 'standards / best practices transition' court orders from the Social Property Court(s), via timely response to contractual orders for the production of new-vintage means of production "plant and equipment", and retraining services, received from the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', by those 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises that specialize in the construction of such "plant and equipment", and in [re-]training(s) in its safe and effective use.
 

By such a social system design, society as a whole, the social majority, gains from rapid economy-wide adoption of proven innovations in productivity and product quality, and incentives to such innovation are preserved, without penalizing or bankrupting the holders of the means of production thereby rendered obsolete, by penalties which would otherwise impose unnecessary, non-beneficial harm, and which might otherwise also foster a parochial, anti-social opposition to the social good of social productivity-enhancing innovation.





Endnotes.



[e0

Notes on Our Use of Delimiters

The entire content of this document consists of hypotheses, demarcated by:  ....
An exception is one deductive proof (derived rigorously from explicit assumptions), demarcated by: symbol13...symbol14.

Single quote-marks enclose 'self-quotes' of this text's own coinages: '...'.

Double quote-marks enclose exact quotes of others: "...".

Triple quote-marks enclose approximate, paraphrased quotes of others, or use of a standard English term with a meaning partially altered from its standard meaning:  '''...'''.

Double 'angle marks' enclose non-English words, whether transliterated or rendered in their native alphabets: «...».



Notes on Our Use of Embedded Parentheticals

This text often uses 'word-embedded parentheticals' to 'appropriate' the ambiguities in current English usages, so as to amplify the meaning of a given phrase or sentence, by creating two [or more] distinct, but semantically parallel, or semantically convergent, readings of that "single" line.

Example
A:

The phrase 'the dialectic of human-social formation(s)' is intended to invoke two distinct but convergent readings:  (
1) 'the dialectic of human-social formation', and (2) 'the dialectic of human-social formations'.

Likewise, the phrase 'The Dialectic of [the] Human[ized Portion of] Nature' is meant to evoke two 'mutually-supplementary' readings:  (
1) 'The Dialectic of Human Nature', and (2) 'The Dialectic of the Humanized Portion of [total] Nature', i.e., of the portions of nature containing the '''self-objectifications''' of humanity, etched and inscribed into the [pre-human-]natural material via human labor.

Example
B:

Consider the phrase 'the social-relations-of-[human-society/human-social-relations [self-[re-]]production'.


It is designed to evoke four convergent readings, namely (
1) the social relations of production; (2) 'the social relations of social reproduction'; (3) 'the social-relations of social-relations-self-reproduction', and; (4) 'the social relations of human-society's 'self-production'.

The concept of '''the social relations of production''', in the Marxian tradition, is paired with that of '''the social forces of production''', so that this multiple reading is also linked to that of the phrase 'the social [self-]force(s) of [human-society/social-relations [self-[re-]]production [/ [[‘self-[‘re-]]productivity[’/‘[self-]transformativity’].



Notes on Our Use of Text Coloration

Wherever color emphasis occurs in this text, whether within quotations or otherwise, the color-coding standard applied is as follows:

Red text signifies entities which conduce to the 'meta-catabolic' (
-1), annihilatory species of opposition [For an explanation of how red emphasis is applied, see "Notes on Our Use of Emphasis" below.];

Blue text that has not been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined, signifies neutrality (
±0), or the complementary species of opposition (e.g., the [mutually-inclusive/]mutin’-defining, e.g., the type of opposition between the "north" versus "south" poles of a magnet);

Blue text that has been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined, signifies that which conduces to the supplementary (
+1), 'successory', or 'supercessory' species of opposition (e.g., 'contra-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes thesis; 'uni-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes both thesis and 'contra-thesis').


Notes on Our Use of Emphasis

Throughout the authored passages in this Malady and Remedy text, emphasis is denoted at intensifying levels, by combining the following text traits, in the following order of increasing emphasis:


regular, italic, underline, bold, italic-underline, italic-bold, italic underline-bold.


The italic underline-bold degree of emphasis is also used for the titles of books.


Notes on Our Use of Emphasis within Quotations

Throughout the quoted passages included within this Malady and Remedy text, all italicized, underlined, emboldened, or colored emphasis, and combinations thereof -- unless otherwise noted locally
-- has been added by the anonymous author(s) of this text.



Notes on Our Use of Indentation

Longer quotations are indented — as are longer lists — in both cases, for visual clarity.



Notes on Our Use of Headers

The document is divided up by banners and headers (a.k.a., "headings"), which get smaller as the "h"-size gets larger.


The title uses an "h1"-sized yellow-on-blue banner.


Main sections use the "h2"-sized green-on-blue banners.


Hypotheses and main topics begin with an "h5"-sized blue-on-green header.


Hypotheses and main topics use the "h6"-sized blue-on-green headers to denote their sub-topics.




[e1]
  • Amos Harpaz; Stellar Evolution; A. K. Peters (Wellesley, MA.: 1994); pages 52-53 and 107-111.

[e1_1]
  • George Orwell; Nineteen Eighty-Four; Penguin Plume (New York: 2003)


[e1_2]
  • anonymous; “GS2:  The Political-Economic Law Of Motion of Modern, Capital-based Society -- The 'Socio-Taxis' Toward [State-]Capitalist, ‘HumanocidalTotalitarianism as 'Political-Economic Attractor'” (December 23, 2007)



[e1_3
There are several distinct modes by which '''growth of the productive force''' — or growth of the productivity — of capital "plant and equipment", in competitive use, manifests, and generates, technological, obsolescence depreciation effects, back upon already-installed, earlier-vintage "plant and equipment" capital.


Moreover, these modes of manifestation can — and typically do — occur in combination, as well as in concert — '''entangled'''; "all mixed up"; difficult to delineate.
 

Some of these modes raise the profitability of their leading installers' capital "plant and equipment" — transiently and locally — by reducing the cost of labor per unit of the commodities output for "alienation", or sale, by that capital "plant and equipment":  so-called '''labor[-cost] saving innovations'''.
 

Some others of these modes raise the profitability of their leading installers' capital "plant and equipment" — transiently and locally — by reducing the purchase cost of that "plant and equipment" — for replacement, or for new first installers, relative to the purchase prices paid by previous installers — and/or by reducing the cost(s) of other ingredients/inputs per unit of that new-vintage fixed-capital's commodities output — e.g., raw materials costs, auxiliary materials costs, and/or other operating costs of that fixed-capital "plant and equipment":  so-called "capital saving" and/or ‘‘‘expense(s) saving’’’ innovations.


These multiple modes of manifestation of productivity-growth-induced technological, obsolescence depreciation effects include the following:
 

Case
1
There are cases where present vintages of "the same old" design-«species» of a given design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" costs less to purchase than did previous vintages of "the same old" design-«species» of a given design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment".

In such cases, productivity growth in the companies, in the processes of production, and/or in the design of the 'meta' "plant and equipment", which produce this present design-«species» of capital "plant and equipment", may have itself lowered the cost per unit of this present, "same old" design-«species» of capital "plant and equipment" means of production, in the "production of means of production" department of industry.


This situation potentially enables the purchasers of the present, less costly vintages, in a competitive situation, to (
a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their previous-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their previous-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher unit profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis their previous-vintage-owning competitors' unit profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c) set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the opposite extremes advantages alternatives, (a) and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.


Case
2
There are cases in which the present, new design-«species», of a certain design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" cost less for capitalists to purchase than did the present, old design-«species» of that same design-«genos», while both the old and the new design-«species» produce commodity output (
a) of the same quality, (b) at the same rate with respect to time, and (c) with the same operating costs.  In such cases, the design of the capital "plant and equipment" itself has been improved, in a way which reduces the cost of production of "plant and equipment" of the new design-«species» vis-a-vis "plant and equipment" of the older design-«species».
 

Or, perhaps, the present vintages of the new design-«species» cost the same to initially purchase as do the present vintages of the old design-«species», but the new design-«species» costs less to run than does the old — less labor-cost (for example, less skilled labor required), and/or less raw materials cost, and/or less auxiliary materials costs, and/or less power-cost, etc., while still producing commodity output (
a) of the same quality, and (b) at the same rate with respect to time.


In all of these sub-cases of Case
2, the design of the capital "plant and equipment" itself has improved, raising productivity with respect to the commodity output of that "plant and equipment", by reducing the quantity/cost of some or all of the required inputs per unit of that fixed-capital plant's commodity output.
 

Such a mode of capital "plant and equipment" productivity raising, or '''productive force increase''', tends thereby to reduce the cost of production of each unit of that commodity output.

That cost of production reduction 'potentiates' a profitable lowering of the unit price of that commodity output on the market, relative to the higher unit prices that typically must be charged by competitors stuck with "plant and equipment" of the same «genos», but of earlier design(s) «species», inferior in this sense.

That is, this situation potentially enables the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», in a competitive situation, to (
a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis their old-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c) set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the opposite extremes advantages alternatives, (a) and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.


Case
3
There are cases in which new vintages, new design-«species» of the same design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" cost the same as the old vintage/old design-«species» of that same design-«genos», both to purchase, and to run/operate, per unit of commodity output over the expected physical, wear-and-tear depreciation "life" of that "plant and equipment", and in which both the new and the old design-«species» produce commodity output of the same quality/‘‘‘utility’’’.

The exception in this case, is that the new-vintage design-«species» can produce its commodity output faster, i.e., at an accelerated rate, as measured in commodity-units output per unit of operating time, relative to the time rate of output of the old-vintage design-«species».

This profitability-advantage of the new-vintage design-«species» spreads unit labor expenses, and some other expenses that are charged per unit of time, e.g., rent-expenses, etc., over a larger volume of units of commodity output per unit of time than can the old-vintage design-«species».

This advantage thus potentially enables, in a competitive situation, the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», to (
a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis their old-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c) set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the opposite extremes advantages alternatives, (a) and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.
 

Case 4
There are cases in which new-vintage, new design-«species» of the same design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" cost the same as the old-vintage, old design-«species» of the same design-«genos», both to initially purchase, and to run/operate, and in which both run and produce their commodity-outputs at the same 'run-rate', but where the new-vintage, new design-«species» produces a higher ‘‘‘utility’’’ product, a qualitatively better product, as its commodity output — a commodity output of higher quality/utility than that of the commodity output generated by the old-vintage, old-design-«species».


This case features growth of productivity, or of '''productive force''', not in terms of the cost of the capital "plant and equipment" itself, nor in terms of the design of the capital "plant and equipment", nor in terms of the cost of the inputs that this capital "plant and equipment" requires to produce its commodity output, nor in terms of the "run-rate" or “output-rate” of this capital "plant and equipment", but, on the contrary, in terms of the design of the product — of the design of the commodity output — of that capital "plant and equipment".
 

In this case, that commodity output has been improved in terms of its use-value, making that new-vintage, new design-«species» output more desirable, even if it sells for the same unit price, or even, within limits, for a higher unit price, relative to the unit price of the commodity output of the old-vintage, old-design-«species» capital "plant and equipment".
 

This improvement in the useful quality of the commodity output thus potentially enables the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», in a competitive situation, to (
a) increase the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the demand for their higher price, but higher utility, commodity output, thus increasing their profit margins and profit-returns vis-a-vis those of those competitors', or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-mass in their profit-returns, due to the higher volume/quantity of their units of commodity output demanded at that unit price, vis-a-vis the volume/quantity demanded of those competitors' less-useful commodity output, or to (c) decrease the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, thus escalating the volume/quantity demanded for their lower price, but higher utility, commodity output, thus increasing their market share at the expense of those competitors', and potentially driving those competitors out of business, thereby eliminating/buying-out that competition.


[e2]
  • "U. S. Price Levels [from] 1665 to 2005, in Constant (2005) Dollars"



[e3]


[e4]
  • Charles Babbage; On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures; The Echo Library (Teddington, Middlesex, U.K.: 2008); page 161.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4238 — avails a free download of the book.



[e5]
  • Harold C. Livesay; Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business; The Library of American Biography (NY: 2007); pages 127-128.
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1323778 — for local library availability



[e6]
  • "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (film released on October 2, 2008)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912 — free access to this film on Google
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r6-o1lpJHU — free access to this film on YouTube
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ — related information 


[e7]
  • Geert Reuten, "The Incompatibility of Prolonged Technical Change and Competition: Concurrence and the Socialization of Entrepreneurial Losses through Inflation"


[e8]
  • Joseph M. Gilman, The Falling Rate of Profit:  Marx's Law and Its Significance to Twentieth-Century Capitalism



[e8_1]
  • Edwin Black, War Against the Weak; Four Walls Eight Windows Press (New York: 2003); see especially pages 101-102 and 279-320.



[e8_2]
  • For more on the 'humanocidal' intent of the core plutocracy's new, 'Soylent Green', humanocidal pseudo-religion of "People Are Pollution", Neo-Malthusian 'Earthism', and the related, component core-plutocracy-psycho-engineered ideologies of "Global Warming" and "Peak Oil", see the following:

anonymous; "GS4: The Actual Agenda Behind the "Peak Oil" Ploy, and the Global Warming Hysteria" (February 5, 2008)

anonymous; "GS-7:  The 'Global Warming' Hysteria is a 'Rocke-Nazi' 'Psy-Op', Based on a Hitlerian-Goebbelsian 'Big Lie'" (February 15, 2008)

anonymous; "GS-8:  Exposing 'Global Warming' Big Lie #1 -- That Carbon Dioxide is a Pollutant" (July 20, 2008)



[e9]
  • "Zeitgeist: The Movie" (film released on June 18, 2007)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197 — free access to this film on Google
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ — related information
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/zeitgeistmovie31jul07.shtml — further discussions regarding the film




[e10]
  • The text makes the following claim:  "Both (1) reduced commodity unit-revenues from sales, resulting from reduced commodity unit-prices, and (2) sales revenues episodically reduced by write-offs of part or all of the historical cost of 'technodepreciated' "plant and equipment", i.e., of "fixed capital", can reduce the R numerator of the profitability-measuring "Return on Investment", net-Revenue-over-fixed-capital-Investment, or (Returns / Investment), ratio, relative to its "plant and equipment" Investment-cost, or I, denominator.
 

Note that effect (
2) also reduces the I denominator, by an equal amount of techno-depreciation write-off, d, to that which reduces the R numerator, but the numerator-reduction-effect predominates with respect to the magnitude of the "Return on Investment" ratio as a whole, for, if I > R > d > 0, then ((Rd)/(Id))   <   (R/I)."
 

Thus, we have the claim that, given any rational numbers, I,
R, and d — i.e., given that I, R, and d "are members of" or "are elements of" (), the number set Q, wherein, Q = {...–3/2...–2/2...–1/2...0...+1/2...+2/2...+3/2...} — the set of “Rational Numbers”, and, given that they are quantitatively interrelated as follows: I > R > d > 0, that it then must be the case that ((Rd)/(Id))   <   (R/I).
 

Using '
&' to signify "and", '' to signify "implies", and "Q.E.D." to denote (the Latin phrase) "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", or "[that] which was to be demonstrated [has been demonstrated]", we have the following proof structure:



symbol13

Given:

I,
R, d Q     &     I > R > d > 0



To Prove:

I,
R, d Q     &     I > R > d > 0         (R/I)  >  (Rd)/(Id)



Proof:

Assertion
#1:
R < I

Justification:  This is a given.


Assertion
#2:
&    d  > 0

Justification:  This is also a given.


Assertion
#3:
    Rd  <  Id

Justification:
Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion
#1, by the same positive factor, in this case, d, preserves the inequality.


Assertion
#4:
    –(Rd)   >   (Id)

Justification:
Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion
#3, by the same negative Rational factor, in this case, –1, reverses the inequality.


Assertion
#5:
    RI  +  (Rd)   >   RI  +  (Id)        RIRd   >  RI Id

Justification:
Adding the same increment, in this case,
RI, to both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 4), preserves that relationship of inequality.


Assertion
#6:
    R(I d)   >   I(R d)

Justification:
This is achieved by "factoring", that is, by the virtue of the axiomatically-asserted distributivity of multiplication over subtraction within the “Field” of “Rational” numbers.


Assertion
#7:
& I > 0

Justification:  This is one of the givens.


Assertion
#8:
    (R/I)(I d)   >   (R d)

Justification:
Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion
#6, by the same positive factor, in this case, by I, preserves the relationship of inequality.


Assertion
#9:
&    I  >  d

Justification:  This is one of the givens.


Assertion
#10:
    I d   >   d d

Justification:
Subtracting the same increment, in this case,
d, from both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion #9, preserves the relationship of inequality.


Assertion
#11:
    I d   >   0

Justification:   This is by definition of the specific “Rational” number
0.


Assertion
#12:
    (R/I)   >   (Rd)/(I d)

Justification:
Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion
#8, by the same positive factor, in this case, by (I d), preserves the relationship of inequality. Q.E.D.

symbol14



[e11]
  • anonymous; "The Heart and Soul of Marxian Theory" (January 25, 2008).


[e12]
  • anonymous; "GS9:  Capital Asset Bubble Engineering -- An Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Arsenal of the Ruling Plutocracy" (September 18, 2008).



[e13]
  • Jules Archer; The Plot to Seize the White House:  The Shocking True Story of the Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR; Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. (New York: 2007); pages 22, 27, 29, 30-32, et passim.



[e13_1]
  • Kevin Phillips; American Dynasty:  Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush; Viking (New York: 2004); pages 15-50.



[e14]
  • anonymous; "GS11:  The Great Depression, World War II, Hitler, and the Rocke-Nazis" (September 18, 2008).



[e15]
  • Sam Schechner; "Nuclear Ambitions:  Amateur Scientists Get a Reaction from Fusion" in The Wall Street Journal (Monday, August 18, 2008 — Vol. CCLII, No. 41); page 1.


[e16] 

  •  Amateur Nuclear Fusion — by Raymond Jimenez; Lulu Publishing (September 18, 2008)



[e17]
  • anonymous; "GS3:  The Long History of the "Rocke-Nazi" Suppression of Nuclear Fusion Energy Development, and the Decoy of Linear-Equilibrium 'Tokamak' Fusion" (January 02, 2008).



[e18]
  • anonymous; "GS5:  Fusion Breakthrough" (January 02, 2008).



[e19]
  • anonymous; "GS10:  Meet the 'Meta-Nazis' Face-to-Face" (September 18, 2008).



[e20]
  • anonymous; "GS12:  Some Hypotheses Concerning the Lobby for Global Genocide" (September 18, 2008).



[e21]
  • anonymous; "GS1:  Global Strategic HypothesesTowards A Strategy for Humanity" (March 02, 2007).



[e21_1]
  • Ted Kaczynski; "Industrial Society and Its Future" ("The Unabomber Manifesto")



[e22]
  • anonymous; "Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism:  Political-Economic Democracy" (June 25, 2008).



[e23]
  • David Schweickart; Against Capitalism; Cambridge University Press (Paris: 1993).
  • David Schweickart; After Capitalism; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (New York: 2002).