[the] contents of the five remaining, unwritten books of the six books, planned by Marx, for his dialectical, immanent critique of the ideology-pervaded, ideology-compromised science of
classical political economy, the classical economic science/ideology of modern, capital-centered society, i.e., of the society whose all-dominating social relation of production is what Marx
called “the capital-relation”.
The goal for this blog-entry is to dialectically calculate two ‘“Tables of Content”’ for the content that Marx envisioned -- based upon a marshaling of all available evidence as to his intensions in that regard -- for his entire “Critique of Political Economy”: all six+ “books”.
One of the two versions of that dialectically-calculated list of ‘ideo-physio-ontological’, categorial contents will be presented in ‘dialectical-analytical language’.
The other will be presented in a more popularized, ‘“literary”’ language.
Far beyond this blog-entry, a goal of the Foundation is to publish a multi-volume treatise entitled
“Descendance-Phase Capitalism”, which will, to the best of our ability, actually carry-out, and fill-out, or fulfill, the content summarized in that ‘“table of content”’, in a way which assimilates all of the wealth, including the tragedies, of modern human experience and knowledge -- stripped of ideology -- since Marx wrote his last line about this domain, as Marx often indicated that he fervently hoped his followers would do, for the good of the -- growing -- majority of humankind, the working class, and, therefore, for the good of global humanity as a whole.
On the other side, the three classes, as production posited in its three basic forms and presuppositions of circulation.”
In our times, now, when state-bureaucracy-as-totalitarian-ruling-class state-capitalism -- heinously misnomered as “socialism” or “communism” -- has fulfilled its “historical mission”, of delivering its peoples back into the world market of the capital-relation, in the form of hybrid, private/state-capitalist re-totalitarianizing nation-states, and in which the latest world-market depression-crisis of capitalism -- still unfolding further today -- has underscored the ultra-vicious, ‘humanocidal socio-taxis’ of descendance-phase global capitalism, we who hold the weal of Terran humanity at heart are urgently in need of jettisoning “Marx-ist”, crypto-religious ideology, and of returning to -- precisely in order to resume -- Marx’s dialectical-scientific critique of political economy, in order to secure a dialectical-scientific guidance for our efforts to help this humanity -- including to help ourselves -- achieve social-evolutionary, and social-revolutionary, ‘‘‘escape velocity’’’ from the ‘descendant-phase capital-attractor’ of global ‘humanocide’: of a global, final ‘‘‘New Dark Age’’’.
We are, in particular, in urgent need of reconstructing and completing the whole of Marx’s intended critique of the political-economics of the global capitals-system, and of furthering that intended critique, by means of all of the human-historical experience of life under that capitals-system, and of all of the wealth of universal labor, accumulated since Marx’s time.
This text is created in the spirit of contribution to that urgent human task.
Seldonian ‘First Dialectical Algebra’, to the reconstruction -- step-by-step -- of a
step-valued ‘dialectical-mathematical method-of-presentation meta-model’ of the contents,
and of the systematic dialectic of the contents, of Marx’s entire critique of political economy.
Evidently, given Marx’s plan of that critique as repeatedly written-out by him, our «arché» for this ‘meta-model’ -- our beginning category, or starting-point -- must be the category named Capital itself.
Let us embed that «arché» category, Capital, abbreviated to C, into the algorithmic context
No new ‘category-description(s)’ to “solve for”, here, in this 0th step.
The status of our reconstruction so far can be presented pictorially as per the depiction below --
If we depict the step s = 0 partial Table Of Contents [TOC] for the entire, ostensibly 6-Treatise Critique of Political Economy as a whole, we have --
How vast a content is already "intended" [connoted] even by just the first category, «Capital-en-général», can be seen by "extending" ['explicitizing'] the known connotations -- drawn up from Marx's various draft outlines of, and manuscript titles for components of, the '"first Treatise"', by '"union"' of their -- in-detail -- varying contents, as follows:
1. Step 1. The s = 1 ‘equation-value’ of our Critique of Political Economy ‘meta-equation’ is --
(CPEC 2)2 = (CPEC + CPEL)2 =
(CPEC + CPEL) x (CPEC + CPEL) =
CPEC + CPEL + CPEqLC + CPEqLL.
of the two preceding categories; of the first, «arché» category, CPEC,
and / with the second category, CPEL.
More specifically, that “canonical” interpretation expects that the third category-symbol might describe an «arithmos», or ‘‘‘number’’’, of ‘hybrid units’, uniting units of the Landed Property category, with units of the Capital category.
Marx clearly asserts, in several key passages of the Grundrisse, that the reproduction of the modern Wage-Labor relation-of-production is the contemporary joint product, as well as the historical joint-product, of the contemporary, synchronic interaction of modern Landed Property and Modern Capital, based on seemingly difficult arguments, as worded.
We will review those arguments in detail a little further on.
The best quick summary of the logic of Marx’s solution that we know of, e.g., as to the correct meaning for the algebraic category-symbol CPEqLC, is to say that the contemporary forcible exclusion of the majority of the population from access to land, and from access to other means of production of livelihood as well, by the joint action of the units of Capital and of Landed Property, as property-relations/social-relations-of-production units, and as units of a dominant/‘co-ruling classes’ alliance, is the social force that maintains the majority of the human population within the confines of the Wage Labor category -- e.g., in the class status of Wage Labor [or, recently, also in that of Salaried Labor], that is, in the social relation of production / “property”-relation of [relative] property-less-ness, of the relative lack of ownership of either landed property or industrial capital property [although the late ascendance-phase capitals-system emergence of home-ownership, and/or of capital-stock ownership, among upper working-class elements, has modified this characterization to a degree, but to a degree which is also under relentless attack, especially recently, in the current, 2007+ global depression self-crisis of the self-globalizing capitals-system.
We may therefore assert [ ‘|-.=’ ] our solution, for this third category-term of our step s = 2 equation, to be the CPE category of modern Wage Labor, denoted by CPEW --
(CPEC 2)2 = (CPEC + CPEL)2 =
(CPEC + CPEL) x (CPEC + CPEL) =
The standard “canons of interpretation” of the Seldonian ‘solution-«praxis»’, for such algebraic ‘poly-qualinomial’ terms as CPEqLL, expect this fourth category-description to represent a
supplementary categorial “other” of -- a second, supplementary ‘‘‘dialectical opposite’’’, or “antithesis”, to -- the second, first “antithesis” category, resolved as CPEL, as well as constituting an “other” categorial opposite to the first, «arché» category, and also to the third, ‘uni-category’, as well as to the entire “non-amalgamative”, «asumbletoi» ‘‘‘sum’’’ / ‘cumulum’ of all three of the initial triad of categories, taken as a whole.
More specifically, the “canonical” interpretation expects that this fourth category-symbol might describe an «arithmos», or ‘‘‘number’’’, of ‘meta-units’ to the units of the Landed Property category, with each such ‘meta-unit’ being “made up out of”, or ‘‘‘«aufheben»-containing’’’, a heterogeneous multiplicity of the units of the Landed Property category.
In terms of the institutional formations of modern, capital-centered, society, in terms of the “institutional infrastructure” essential to this kind of society, landed-property-relations -- individual landed-property units; individual landed proprietors’ individual land-properties -- are typically subsumed by, and ‘‘‘«aufheben»-contained’’’ in / by, national state sovereign territories, by the ultimate “ownership”, on the part of ‘nation-state’, of all of the total sovereign territor(y)(ies), of the -- usually-contiguous -- territorial expanses that constitute modern nation-states, whose residents pay, as a deduction from their class revenues, taxes, to support the public bureaucracies, and the operations, of the nation-state that ultimately ‘“owns”’ the land that they “own”.
Such “[nation-]State units are, indeed, quite literally and visibly so, ‘meta-units’ which territorially ‘‘‘«aufheben»-contain’’’ “heterogeneous multiplicities” of Landed Property units.
We may therefore assert [ ‘|-.=’ ] our solution, for this fourth category-term of our step s = 2 equation, to be the CPE category of modern nation-States, denoted by CPES --
(CPEC 2)2 = (CPEC + CPEL)2 =
(CPEC + CPEL) x (CPEC + CPEL) =
This synchronic, systematic, method-of-presentation dialectic thus exhibits a developing interplay, a continuing and mounting counterpoint, between more abstract, ‘‘‘value-form[ation]’’’, or ‘‘‘social-relation-of-production’’’, “social formation” categories, and more ‘“grounded”’ -- more concrete, more tangible, more visible and more sensuous -- ‘‘‘spatial’’’, geographical, ‘territorial-form[ation]’ “social formation” categories.
The progress of our reconstruction, so far, can be presented pictorially as per the depiction pasted-in below --
Note: In the diagrams for this blog-entry, we are using the ‘Marxian convention’, in which the upward vertical direction of display represents the direction of increasing ‘thought-concreteness’, complexity, or determinateness [‘determinations-rich-ness’].
This convention is an inversion of the convention associated with philosophical idealism -- Platonian, Aristotelian, Porphyrian, etc. -- for which the upward vertical direction of display is the direction of increasing generality, abstractness, and simplicity, or ‘determinations-depletion’, and also a convention that we of F.E.D. have often adopted in our diagrams, e.g., when illustrating the paradigm of ‘systematic, synchronic, ‘trans-Platonian «arithmoi eidetikoi» dialectic’.
Marx described this -- what we term -- ‘Marxian convention’ in the following, crucial, methodological passage from his “Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy”, near the beginning of his «Grundrisse» [‘“Foundation”’] manuscript --
“The economists of the seventeenth century, e.g., always begin [M.D.: e.g., always began their method of discovery] with the living whole, with population, nation, state, several states, etc.; but they always conclude [M.D.: Ee.g., conclude their method of discovery] by discovering through analysis a small number of [M.D.: determinations -- ] determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, value, etc.”
“As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began [M.D.: the systematic method of presentation of] the economic systems, which ASCENDED from the simple [M.D.: abstract] relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nation[M.D.: -state]s and the world market.”
“The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method.”
“The [M.D.: thought-]concrete is concrete [as and for thought -- M.D.] because it is a concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse.”
“It appears in the process of thinking, therefore, as a process of concentration [E.g., as a process of ‘cumul-ation’, and of ‘multi-quality sum-ation’, or of ‘qualitative superposition’ of determinations -- M.D.], as a result, not as a point of departure, even though it is the point of departure in reality, and hence also the point of departure for observation and conception.”
In the event, Marx did not live to write his “Dialectics”.
1. Dialectic of Marx’s Capital, Deepest-Level First Triad: Deepest.
2. Dialectic of Marx’s Capital, Mid-Level First Triad: Mid-Level First.
3. Dialectic of Marx’s Capital, Mid-Level Second Triad: Mid-Level Second.
4. Dialectic of Marx’s Capital, Top-Level, Overall First Triad: Top-Level.
qKMGA + qKMC + qKMCA +qKMCG + qKMCGA.].
The relationship between the CPES = CPEqS category and the CPEqSS category is thus a dialectical relationship, i.e., an «aufheben», ‘meta-monadological’ relationship, in that each unit of category CPEqSS is a ‘meta-unit-ization’ -- i.e., is an «aufheben» negation / conservation / elevation -- of exactly two units of category CPES = CPEqS.
- The sub-section connoted by the algebraic, ‘unknown category’ description, CPEqSC, should describe interactions of nation-State units with Capital units [with “individual capitals”] -- interactions that, stabilized and continually reproduced, form the “lawful” [‘‘‘maintainable’’’], ongoing, typical, standard relation between each nation-State unit and each Capital unit;
- The sub-section connoted by the algebraic, ‘unknown category’ description, CPEqSL, should describe interactions of nation-State units with Landed Property units [with individual land titles / title-holders] -- interactions that, stabilized and continually reproduced, form the “lawful” [‘‘‘maintainable’’’] relation between each nation-State unit and each Landed Property unit;
- The sub-section connoted by the algebraic, ‘unknown category’ description, CPEqSW, should describe interactions of nation-State units with Wage-Labor units, e.g., partitioned and aggregated in terms of the Capital units, and/or in terms of the Landed Property units, that “contain” / employ those units -- interactions that, stabilized and continually reproduced, form the “lawful” [‘‘‘maintainable’’’] relation between each nation-State unit and each Wage-Labor unit.