Full Title --
Part 3 of 9. Seldonian, Dialectical-Algebraic Derivation of Fundamental Features for the
Global Successor System to [Self-]Global[ized] Capitalism, using the
Dialectical ‘Meta-Equation’ that Models the ‘Meta-Evolution’ of
the Human-Social Relations of Production.
Global Successor System to [Self-]Global[ized] Capitalism, using the
Dialectical ‘Meta-Equation’ that Models the ‘Meta-Evolution’ of
the Human-Social Relations of Production.
by [Guest
Author] Hermes de Nemores.
Dear Reader,
Questions have recently been raised, in ‘www’ dialogues in which I participated, as to what Karl Seldon derived, and how he derived it, with regard to the global system of ‘Democratic Communism’, or of ‘Marxian Democracy’ -- of ‘Political-Economic Democracy’ -- as the possible global successor system to the global capitalist system, using the dialectical algebra that he discovered in 1996.
Such questions deserve an answer.
This blog-entry summarizes the third part of
Seldon’s answer.
This text was extracted from writings of Hermes de Nemores,
Secretary-General of Foundation Encyclopedia
Dialectica, and chairperson of its General
Council, from his recent update to an introductory text, whose earlier version
is available via --
[see, in particular, pages B-24 to B-37 in the latter].
-- and which I have adapted to the locally-available
typography.
Enjoy this third part of Hermes de Nemores’ re-telling of
Seldon’s amazing saga of discovery!
Regards,
Miguel
Miguel
Example 5: NQ Psychohistorical-Dialectical ‘Meta-Model’. The ‘Meta-Equation’
of Human-Social Relations of
Production ‘Meta-Evolution’
[Part 3 of 9].
Historically Specific Commentary, Epoch t =
2. The 'Intra-Duality' of Use-Values -- of '''Goods'''
/ '''Gifts''' -- Drives the
Emergence of the Content of a New Category of Social Relations of Production
Human Socio-Ontology,
that of Commodities. The development of increasing human capability to improve
upon raw nature in crafting human products to a greater '''fitness''', or '''Appropriateness''', for human
consumption intensifies an intra-communal economy of obligatory redistribution
and mutual "gift"-reciprocation [i.e., of delayed/contingent
exchange].
This exchange reproduces a form of inter-mutual
'''insurance''', or communal '''social risk management''', against the
variability and the vagaries of the ever-shifting hunting and horticultural
circumstances for human societies, 'meta-societies' abjectly dominated daily by
the conditions imposed by the «physis»,
that is, by the otherness of exo-human Nature.
Gradually, with the slow but also slowly-accelerating
growth of the productive forces of these human communities, a higher 'population'/'frequency-of-encounter', and 'densification' of Goods-making activities, and of their
products, is experienced.
The human-populated portions of the Terran planetary
biosphere become an increasingly skills-prosperous, goods-enriched,
artifacts-permeated, and use-value-wealthy world.
Use-value, in this context, increasingly develops also
its own, specific 'self-duality', its own internal, 'ontological/existential self-contra-diction', or 'auto-contra-kinesis'; its own 'intra-duality', 'self-antithesis', or
'internal opposition', namely, that of 'direct use' vs. 'indirect-use'; 'immediate consumption
use' versus 'mediate[d], exchange-use'.
This 'pleni-population' and 'densification' of 'Goods-«monads»' in human-social space is a
manifestation of "the growth of the productive forces", i.e., of the growth of
the productivity of human Goods-making
activity, hence of the growth of the population-density of human-Goods artefacts.
Such growth can give rise, at
first accidentally and unintentionally, to surfeits,
to production -- or to production-capacity, production-potential -- in excess
of local needs.
Such local excess production, or
"surplus product", is, initially, not 'use-value',
but, rather, 'non-use-value' and waste, or '''human-social entropy''',
from the point of view of local consumption-use.
Yet it has the potential, through
'exchange-use', to procure other Goods from other localities -- other Goods which may also be in surfeit at
their points of origin, within those other localities, so that the inhabitants of those
other localities may also be willing to trade in it, but which are not in surfeit, given local needs
and desires, with respect to local consumption-use for the first-mentioned
locality.
Irregular, aperiodic such
recoupings of potential waste-loss via exchange -- episodes of inter-communal barter as interlude
to periods of non-contact or of inter-communal war -- may give rise to a
growing appreciation of the benefits of bartering; to perceptions of what we today call
'''comparative advantage'''.
This may lead to the
'frequentization', 'regularization', and eventual 'institution-alization' of production
with the premeditated intent of barter-exchange, and, thereby, of proto-markets.
That is, this may lead to deliberate, intentional production of Goods that are in
surplus supply locally -- i.e., surfeit with respect to the consumption needs
of the producer or of the producer's local community.
That means production of Goods as Commodities-intended-for-barter, i.e., in
quantities which would make most of the resulting product a 'socio-entropic' non-use-value for the local community, absent trade, but with
the aim of converting that product into use-value-for-the-community
through the
mediation of trade in the form of the social praxis of barter exchange.
Thus, the content of the
‘socio-ontological category’ of Goods 'self-bifurcates' --
[G ---> G<G> = G + qGG = G + C]
-- in response to growing populations and human-social densities [physical-spatial concentrations] of Goods, resulting from the rising productivity -- the rising productive force -- of human labor, into a sum [with the underscore here indicating a qualitative, non-amalgamative sum]: Goods + Commodities --
[G ---> G<G> = G + qGG = G + C]
-- in response to growing populations and human-social densities [physical-spatial concentrations] of Goods, resulting from the rising productivity -- the rising productive force -- of human labor, into a sum [with the underscore here indicating a qualitative, non-amalgamative sum]: Goods + Commodities --
G ---> ~<G> = G x G = <G>2 = <G + D<G> > = <G + qGG> = <G + C> ¬{<,=,>} G.
The equation specific to our generic ‘meta-equation’, >-|-<t = <A>2^t, for its epoch t = 2, is --
>-|-<2 = <A>2^2, = <A>4 = <A + G>2 = <A + G> x <A + G>
=
<<A + G + qGA>
~+~ C >
-- which means, among other
things, that it remains possible for the earlier-arisen, A and G social relations/’praxes’, to
persist throughout epoch t = 2, despite their ‘‘‘formal
subsumption’’’, during this epoch, by the C relation/social praxis.
The epoch t = 2 new ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ term, qGA, signifies the ‘G-dominated’ dialectical synthesis
of G and A.
This term might thus be
interpreted [‘‘‘solved’’’] as connoting the “human social praxis
transformative”, productivity-/productive-force-heightening entry of “Goods” into the
domain of “raw Appropriation”, or of “Predation” -- e.g., originally bare-hands hunting now
facilitated by hand-made, ‘hu-man-ually-fact-tured’ blades, spears, bows and
arrows, etc.
Of course, during this same
epoch, earlier-arisen practices surrounding, e.g., band, camp, and village Goods Gifts may become generalized into exploitative social
relations of production, involving obligatory tributary “Gifts” of Goods, transferred,
e.g., from conquered tribal
chiefdoms to conquering tribal chiefdoms, and/or of obligatory “tithe”-like Gifts to temple
priesthood bureaucracies for redistribution within, e.g., a city-state
multi-tribal-chiefdom
alliance.
We can summarize the models-progression so far via the following '[self-meta-]monad-ization chart' --
The overall specification for the models contained within the 'meta-model' that we are narrating here is --
Historically Specific
Commentary,
Epoch t =
3. The 'Intra-Duality' of Commodities Drives the Emergence of the content of the
Social Relations of Production Human 'Socio-Ontological' Category of Monies. The ensuing regularization and
institutionalization of Commodity-barter social
relations and social praxes, together with the further gradual growth of the
social forces of production, stimulated, in part, by production for barter exchange, accelerates the
human-social 'densification' of barter
activities.
Ever more commodity
producers/consumers come to habitually depend upon barter as their main means of
access to needed/desired products that they do not produce for themselves, as the barter
"circulation"/proto-market praxis drives a deepening human species-wide specialization of labor/division of
labor.
With this 'frequentization' or 'probabilization' of encounters with, and growing
dependence upon, barter-relations,
certain inconveniences, inefficiencies, and costs of the barter praxis come
to the fore.
Memorizing a vast plethora of
customary 'barter-prices', with a separate quantitative equivalence rule, exchange-ratio,
exchange-relation, or exchange-'relatio' for each pair of Commodities,
becomes ever more burdensome as the quantitative wealth of each given
product-kind, and the diversity of new product-kinds, burgeons with the further
growth of the productive forces, under the impetus of the 'barterist' '''Commodity-relation''' as social relation
of production, in those social margins where it becomes both 'meristemal' and
predominant.
Imagine your feelings about the
need for you to wait, to hold your inventories until another comes to market
willing and able to barter
the exact item(s), in terms of quality, that you are seeking in exchange, and
in the quantity of supply for which you are also seeking.
Imagine how costly in terms of
your time, in terms of your patience, and in terms of the spoilage of your
perishable inventories, etc., the barter-praxis must have been.
There is thus an immanent,
growing need for manifestation of this evanescent, mentally-perceived 'exchange-[use-]value' of Commodities as a separate, generic,
partially-tangible, physicalized/social-symbolic object.
The value, the utility, of a "general equivalent", of a Commodity acceptable in exchange for any
other Commodity,
a standard Commodity in quantities of which all other Commodities can express their exchange-ratios,
their 'barter-prices', is the solution to these
dilemmas of the barter-praxis which has been arrived at
independently, again and again, by mutually-remote human societies on planet
Earth.
This "general equivalent" Commodity role, adopting and then abandoning a
whole sequence of candidate
Commodities,
often finally settles upon a metal, such as copper, then silver, then gold,
given these metal’s properties of density, malleability, durability, uniformity-homogeneity,
and scarcity.
The ‘‘‘Money-Commodity’’’ becomes the "general equivalent", and, eventually, the "universal equivalent", in the form of state-minted paper money;
obligatory legal tender, and, later, in more advanced, even more ‘‘‘ephemeralized’’’,
e.g., plastic, and electronic, forms.
Karl Marx provided a masterful systematic-dialectical
derivation of the social-relations of production
‘socio-ontological category’ of money
as an outgrowth of the three '''Value-forms''' of Commodity-value, with
seamlessly-embedded historical-dialectical
overtones, in both A Contribution To The Critique Of
Political Economy and in Capital, volume I, respectively [e.g., per the
editions by International Publishers -- [NY: 1970], pp. 28-46; [NY: 1967], pp. 35-70,
respectively]. For further
analysis of this systematic-dialectical
transition, from Commodities
to Money, see
Example 10
herein.
The ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’
content of the human ‘socio-ontological category’ of Commodities therefore 'self-bifurcates' [C ---> C<C> = C + qCC = C + M], in response to growing
populations and human-social ‘‘‘densities’’’ [physical-spatial concentrations]
of Commodities, resulting from the rising
productivity -- the rising productive force -- of human labor, into the non-reductionist sum, Commodities + Monies:
C ---> ~<C> = C x C = <C>2 = <C + D<C > > = <C + qCC> = <C + M> ¬{<,=,>} C;
The equation specific to our generic ‘meta-equation’, >-|-<t = <A>2^t, for its epoch t = 3, is --
>-|-<3 = <A>2^3 = <A+G+qGA+C>2 = <<A+G+qGA+C+qCA+qCG+qCGA> ~+~ M>;
-- which means, among other
things, that it remains possible for the earlier-appearing, A, G, qGA, and C possible social relations/’praxes’, to
persist in existence, or to manifest again, throughout epoch t = 3, despite their ‘‘‘formal
subsumption’’’, during this epoch, by the M relation/social praxis.
The epoch t = 3 new ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ terms, qCA, qCG, and qCGA, signify the ‘C-dominated’ ‘dialectical-combinatoric’ partial and full dialectical syntheses
of C with each of the two earlier-possible social relations of production, G and A, and with their ‘‘‘hybrid’’’/ synthesis, qGA.
These three new ‘‘‘hybrid’’’
terms may thus be interpreted [‘‘‘solved’’’] as connoting the “human social
praxis transformative” impact of the C mode of “production for [barter-]exchange” upon its three earlier-possible social relation of production/social praxis
predecessors in their thus-modified persistence in existence into the t = 3 epoch of the ‘‘‘real
domination’’’ of the Commodity-barter relation,
and of the ‘‘‘formal domination’’’ of Monies.
Note. The objects of human
"economic" exchange and "exchange-value" are partly physical objects or physical [ev]entities, but they are also
partly subjective,
mental, memetic objects/[ev]entities; 'psyche-ic' and 'psyche-ological' objects, 'idea-objects' and
'emotional objects', symbolic/semantic objects, or 'cognitive objects'.
Their 'materiality' is thus partly a 'memetic' or mental, cognitive, 'ideative' materiality, and thus
they constitute a 'psychohistorical' materiality’, as well as a 'physical-historical' materiality, both belonging within the purview of F.E.D.’s 'Psychohistorical Materialism' paradigm.
Value is imputed to/projected onto physical objects by human [inter]subjectivities in ways which are
both partly conscious and partly unconscious, but which, either way, are
implicit in
the objective outer behavior/actions/practices of human beings with respect to
those, their value[d]-objects.
Thus, when we say that 'Money is a 'Meta-Commodity' made up out of, or '«aufheben»-containing', a heterogeneous multiplicity
of Commodities', this is not meant in the same overwhelmingly physical
and 'physical-spatial' way that is meant when we say that 'A molecule is a 'meta-atom' made up out of, or '«aufheben»-containing',
a heterogeneous multiplicity of atoms'.
Money '«aufheben»-contains' and 'summarizes' the social manifold of Commodities symbolically, in the sense of
presupposing them, their continual, reliable [re-]production -- their ongoing
presence and availability in the market -- in the minds of its users, and also in the
sense of a necessary inter-subjective belief/trust confidence/ reliance on the part of
the human practitioners of “Commodity”
and “Money”
relations-of-production that the Money
accepted by them in payment from others now will also be accepted
from them as
payment by others later, and with at least some degree of
quantitative stability in the 'exchange-relatios' [ ≈ ratios
/ relations / «rations» / «rapports»
/«verhaltnisse» ], or prices, of those
later Money-mediated
exchanges.
TO BE CONTINUED.
SOLUTION –
‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY’;
BOOK:
MARX’S MISSING
BLUEPRINTS
Free of Charge Download
of Book PDF --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html
Hardcover Book Order --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html
No comments:
Post a Comment