Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Response Regarding Query “¿What is the Alternative to Capitalism?”.







Response Regarding Query ¿What is the Alternative to Capitalism?.







Dear Readers,



I recently responded to an internet query, accessible via --


-- which was stated as follows:

¿Other than communism, what is the alternative to capitalism?


I replied approximately as follows --

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES:  First of all, we should get our terminology straight.  Most people today, when they say “Communism”, actually mean pure-state-bureaucratic-ruling-class State-CAPITALISM [as distinct from FASCISM or NAZIISM, a form of State-Capitalism in which the private-capital-owning ruling class is still either prominent, or still largely in-charge, sharing power with the One-Party-State bureaucracy]. 

So, what most people today think of when they hear “communism” is actually CAPITALISM -- STATE-capitalism -- which is in fact the “lawful” TERMINAL form of capitalism.  State-capitalism is the very opposite of real Marxian communism, as Engel’s was at pains to point out in his book Anti-Duhring.
 
THIS FALSE EQUATION OF STATE-CAPITALISM WITH COMMUNISM IS THE BIGGEST “BAIT-AND-SWITCH” FRAUD IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY TO-DATE!!! 

And this “bait-and-switch” fraud has been CO-perpetrated by the “western” capitalist ruling class’s ruling faction [e.g., the Rockefeller-“eugenics”, “people are pollution”, ‘humanocidal’ political machine], together with the Lenino-Trotskyoid, Lenino-Stalinoid, and Stalino-Maoid “MarxIST” PSEUDO-Marxians, both of which, though enemies contending against each other for power, don’t want anyone to get any inkling of the real nature of Marxian communism, i.e., of the liberatory nature of grass roots ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’!

Rather than as an abstract “alternative” to [State-]Capitalism, as if sitting on an ahistorical plane of completely voluntary or even arbitrary choice, it is better to grasp real Marxian communism -- ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ -- as the “lawful” higher successor-system to the [State-]Capitalist system.  Of course, the other possibility, the “lawful” lower successor to [State-]Capitalism, is ‘‘‘the mutual ruin of the contending classes’’’ [Marx and Engels].

The “lawfulness” I have noted several times above is that of the ‘‘‘political-economic law of motion of modern [capitalist] society’’’ that Marx sought to “lay bare” through his immanent critique of the ideology-compromised science of classical political economy.  It is a ‘[human-]Nature-al’ “law of motion”, not “legislated” consciously by its human enactors, put arising mostly unconsciously, as an emergent property of human collective action, of social praxis, within the self-imposed juridical constraints of the capital social relationship of societal self-reproduction, and of its characteristic ideology, and within the unconscious and ineluctable constraints of a certain range of the growth of the “social forces of production” -- of the [technological] ‘self-productivity’ of humanity.

With hindsight, with the benefit of the history since Marx last wrote, this “law of motion” can be stated rather simply.  By the capitalist system, capital accumulates, and, as it accumulates, it also consolidates, centralizes, and concentrates, in ever fewer hands.  The outbreak of that degree of human rights observance, of liberty, that was the early promise of capitalist society in its outbreak from the ‘aristocratoid’ state/church dictatorships of feudalism, begins to degenerate, as the checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of political governance are increasingly destroyed by concentrations of capital-wealth sufficient to “buy-out” all three braches, prostituting them to the will of a single, unelected, plutocratic capitalist ruling class. 

At the same time, the core capitalist class comes face-to-face with a contradiction that turns “their” system, with all of its advantages and “perks” for them, and for their families, against them:  “their own” system threatens to dethrone them.  This is because that system rewards and motivates technological progress in profit-productivity.  Capitalists pursue productivity growth -- “the growth of the social forces of production [Marx]” -- because it gives them a transient profitability advantage vis-a-vis their competitors, who, while using less-productive plant-and-equipment, suffer relatively higher unit costs.  But as capital accumulates and concentrates in ever fewer hands, more and more in the form of fixed capital that “embodies” that higher-productivity technology, and as the rate of technological progress accelerates under its profitability-advantage incentives, that fixed capital becomes ever-increasingly vulnerable to increasingly catastrophic technological obsolescence, when the next upstart capitalist installs even higher productivity fixed capital, out-competing against the older-vintage fixed capital.  

One need only think, today, of what the advent and deployment of fusion power reactors would do to the capital-value of the fixed capital of the ‘Global Dictatorship of Petroleum’ -- i.e., to the key oil capital assets upon which rests much of the global power of the Rockefeller faction of the core plutocracy.  You may think that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members control this asset.  But, as a friend of mine likes to say:  “Those oil sheikhs don’t even dare to fart without Rockefeller permission.”

Initially, this manifests as secular negative profitability, due to write-offs of ‘techno-depreciated’ fixed capital, and as price deflation -- secularly falling prices -- for consumer goods, capital equipment, etc. 

Later, the concentrated capital owners learn how to deflect some of these losses into a continuous, slow-exponential inflation, that mainly hurts workers and retirees, via “Central Bank” mechanisms, such as those of the U.S. “Federal Reserve”, and to suppress or reverse industrialization in the “less-developed” semi-periphery regions of the globe, where the newest, most-productive technology might be introduced first.  By means of their ‘servant-dictators’ -- servants to the core plutocracy, brutal military, etc., dictators to their own people, thereby creating the “Third World” -- the core ruling class blocks this threat of ‘technodepreciation’ for decades.

But a core ruling class faction “lawfully” emerges, at length, that despairs of holding back, forever, the tide of rising productivity, of rising levels of health and education, of rising middle classes, demanding democracy, worldwide.  This faction concocts new, anti-technology, anti-science, “back to nature”, anti-population, anti-people, “people are pollution” ideologies -- “eugenics”, “limits to growth”, “small is beautiful”, “zero population growth”, “zero economic growth”, “save the planet” [by abortion and [draconian] “population reduction”] -- to induce acquiescence, in the public, to that faction’s global ‘stealth genocide’, and ‘stealth humanocide’ pogroms, and to that faction’s repeated calls for a “95% human population reduction”. 

Hand-in- hand with this global propaganda drive, this faction relentlessly pushes, behind the scenes, for the imposition of horrific, ultra-sadistic Orwellian, totalitarian police-state surveillance states and torture/mass-murder regimes, world wide, and for the hollowing-out and eventual destruction of what remains of representative democracy and of the observance of civil liberties and human rights. 

That faction also concoct ‘Designer Depressions’, economically, and, in their “Shadow laboratories”, GMO ‘Designer Diseases’, as AIDS to their ‘stealth humanocide’ pogroms.

This desperate faction also ruthlessly massacres the leadership of the opposing ruling class faction(s), e.g., the ‘Roosevelt faction’ [John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.]. 

However, there is no “lawful” guarantee that the “eugenics” faction will always retain hegemony.

This “descendence phase” [STATE-]capitalist ruling faction thus threatens not just the working class, which becomes the majority class during this “descendence phase”, but humanity as a whole, with extinction:  the “eugenics” faction would rather destroy humanity than have the capitalist system relentlessly grow the “social forces of production”, to the point where that growth overthrows the ruling faction’s stealth-dictatorial power, and all of the ultra-perverted “perks” of that power.

The only positive way out of this death-spiral is for the majority of humanity to drive the transition to [State-]capitalism’s higher successor system.

Marx also stated that, in nation-states where representative democracy, with workers’ suffrage [workers having voting rights], had been achieved, the transition to [real] communism could probably be accomplished without violent revolution, via the ballot box.  Note that the initial overthrow of Lenino-Stalinoid, pure-bureaucratic state-capitalism in “Soviet” Russia was so majoritarian that it took place with little violence.


We see the constitution of a rule-of-law, democratic transition to real communism -- to ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ -- as arising via the popular recognition, and, later, via the constitutional establishment, of three newly-discerned human rights, rights which are fundamental to the protection and flourishing of human individuals, and of humane society as a whole, in advanced modern society.  They are --

A.  The human right of Citizen Externality Equity’.  This right enables citizens to vote for ‘‘‘public directors’’’, forming second boards of directors, or second management committees, INSIDE each of the local operating units of companies which produce and accumulate “externalities” -- e.g., deadly pollution -- in those citizens’ local communities.  These ‘boards of public directors’ negotiate with those firm’s internal private directors/managers to reduce the annual operating plan budgets of pollution, etc., “external costs”, with recourse to a popularly elected “Tribunal for Externality Equity” if negotiations deadlock, and with fees imposed for any external cost production still allowed in those annual externalities budgets.  This human right, of “grass roots regulation”, supplements external regulatory bureaucracies, typically “captured” and prostituted by the industries that they were supposed to regulate, and also civil court litigation against deadly polluters, where deep-pocketed industries can usually defeat underfunded citizen/worker law suits.

B.  The human right of Citizen Birthright Equity [societal self-investment].  Every child born under this new, Equitarian constitution and bill of rights, will be a “trust fund baby”, in that each new citizen born will be granted, funded partly by ‘Citizen Externality Equity’ pollution fees, partly by ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity social rents’, a lifetime fund, an ‘absolutely-portable’ individual/social-safety-net -- with legislated restraints on its expenditure, so as to check the “moral hazard” potential of such a trust fund -- to cover the basic necessities of human life-opportunity:  e.g., health care, college education, first home purchase, business formation funding, and reparations to victims in the event of conviction for a crime, etc. -- so that every child born has a stake in society -- has “skin in the game” -- and so that society has an investment in every child born, regardless of “what side of the tracks” that citizen was born on.  Should an individual’s fund be exhausted, e.g., due to serial criminal conviction reparations to victims, then that individual would have to fall back on more meager external social welfare provisions.

C.  The human right of Citizen Stewardship Equity.  Lack of access to means of production renders workers victims and playthings of the whims, and of the “lawful” depredations, of the owners of capital.  This human right provides workers with the option of ‘collective self-employment’, via a policy of ‘public venture “capital” ’, supporting ‘collective entrepreneurship’.  The Office of the popularly elected national Custodian of Social Property grants charters to per-legislation-qualifying citizen collectives, which thereby become ‘Social Banks’, also organized as democratically self-managed ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’ cooperatives of a special kind, each granted an equitable allocation of credits for the procurement of means of production.  The ‘Social Banks’ compete for the most perceivably-viable among other citizens’ self-organized collectives, that have per-legislation-qualifying business-plans, including By-Law requirements for internal democratic election/recall of their management teams, which, once their business plans are funded by a ‘Social Bank’, become ‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’.  The ‘Social Banks’ have “skin in the game”.  If they back too many Stewardship Cooperatives that go bankrupt, they lose income, and may even become insolvent themselves as a result.  Likewise, to survive, the ‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’ that (a) ‘Social bank(s)’ back, must prove themselves in market competition against other socialized producers’ cooperatives, and against remaining private capitalist firms, etc., that all produce for the same market(s).  The ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity socialized producers’ cooperatives’ do not collectively or privately “own” the means of production granted to them for their use by the ‘Social Bank(s)’ that back(s) them.  Those means of production are ‘‘‘Social Property’’’.  The citizen-members of the Stewardship Cooperatives do have the usufruct of, and stewardship over, those means of production, a fact manifested in the ‘social rents’ that they must pay, monthly, to the Office of the Custodian of Social Property, for the use of that ‘Social Property’.  These ‘social rents’ provide income to the ‘Social Bank(s)’ that backed these co-ops, and also help to fund the ‘Citizen Birthright Equity socialized Trust Funds’, as well as to fund means of production procurement for new ‘Stewardship Cooperatives’, to finance ‘technodepreciation insurance’, etc.  The use of this means of production social property gives each worker-member/steward of each Stewardship Cooperative -- the “associated producers” -- two stream of personal income:  (1) compensation for hours worked, at labor market rates reflecting individual skills; (2) an equal share in the net operating surplus of the Stewardship enterprise [no absentee “stockholders” are allowed, so no such exist to siphon away this surplus in “dividend” payments, etc.]. Private capitalism is not outlawed, but private-capital-based firms will have to compete for workers against Stewardship Cooperatives wherein the workers themselves decide how workers are to be treated.


This query also calls to my mind the “dialectical theory of everything” developed by a group that is relentlessly carrying forward Marx’s, unfinished, work [by which I do NOT mean the state-bureaucratic ruling-class, dictatorial perversions of the Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, ..., Castroist, and Unist state-CAPITALIST ideologues, fraudsters, and mass murderers] in the five key domains which Marx and Engels were not able to bring to fruition before their deaths. 

Those unfinished domains of Marxian theory and practice include: 

(1) that of the detailed nature of the Marxian dialectic method;

(2) that of the dialectic of Nature, and of the Marxian immanent critique of the ideology that pervasively compromises the modern sciences, including, not just the economic and other social sciences, but the natural sciences and mathematics as well;

(3) clarification, including clear and ‘quanto-qualitative’ definition, of the central Marxian concept of “the social forces of production” -- of ‘the human-societal self-force of human-societal self-re-production’ -- in relation to a ‘Meta-Darwinian’ concept of human-species ‘‘‘fitness’’’ in terms of the rate of human-societal self-reproduction, as well as the interrelated clarification of the core Marxian concept of “the social relations of production”, e.g., of the “capital-relation”, of the “money-relation”, of the “commodity-relation”, etc.  This ‘Meta-Darwinian’ theory recognizes the role of ‘the human Phenome’, as well as of the ‘the human Genome’, in increasing the ‘self-force’, and thereby the rate, of the ‘‘‘movement’’’ of human society in accelerated expanded societal self-reproduction;

(4) that of the detailed nature of the liberatory, Political-ECONOMIC-DEMOCRATIC society -- founded upon the new, unprecedented social relation of production of ‘Generalized Equity’ -- which is the “lawful” higher successor system to [State-]Capitalism;

(5) that of the detailed causation-dynamics of the ever-worsening catastrophic global economic depression-crises, wars, and genocides that advise us all of the growing need for us to transcend [state-]capitalism, by creating that higher successor system, of grass roots Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.

That group is Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [see www.dialectics.org ].



Regards,

Miguel







Monday, May 28, 2018

Response Regarding Query “¿What is the Meaning of Communism?







Response Regarding Query ¿What is the Meaning of Communism?.







Dear Readers,



I recently responded to an internet query, accessible via --


-- which was stated as follows:

¿What is the Meaning of Communism?


I replied approximately as follows --

Karl Marx described communism, in “the Grundrisse” -- an 1857+ massive manuscript that became the first of several drafts toward Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy” as a whole, of which “Das Kapital” forms but the first part of six planned parts -- as growing out of the seeds of political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY already present within capitalism, in the form of “share capital”, e.g., in the capital equity stock principle of “one share, one vote”, a principle that, he predicted, would become generalized in the transition from capitalism to its “lawful” higher successor system, of the democratically “associated producers”:  Share capital ... is the most perfect form (assuming the character of communism), together with all its contradictions.”

In “Das Kapital”, volume III, Marx’s describes the transition to communism -- as to how the embryo of communism forms within the womb of capitalism -- in terms of workers-owned capital, e.g., democratically worker-managed producers’ cooperatives, part of the stage that my associates and I call “workers’ capitalism”.

Marx also stated that, in nation-states where representative democracy, with workers’ suffrage [workers having voting rights], had been achieved, the transition to communism could probably be accomplished without violent revolution, via the ballot box.

We see the constitution of a rule-of-law, democratic transition to real communism -- to ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ -- as arising via the popular recognition, and, later, via the constitutional establishment, of three newly-discerned human rights which are fundamental to the protection and flourishing of human individuals, and of humane society as a whole, in advanced modern society.  They are --

A.  The human right of Citizen Externality Equity’.  This right enables citizens to vote for ‘‘‘public directors’’’, forming second boards of directors, or second management committees, INSIDE each of the local operating units of companies which produce and accumulate “externalities” -- e.g., deadly pollution -- in those citizens’ local communities.  These ‘boards of public directors’ negotiate with the private directors/managers to reduce the annual operating plan budgets of pollution, etc., “external costs”, with recourse to a popularly elected “Tribunal for Externality Equity” if negotiations deadlock, and with fees imposed for any external cost production still allowed in those annual externalities budgets.  This human right, of “grass roots regulation”, supplements external regulatory bureaucracies, typically “captured” and prostituted by the industries that they were supposed to regulate, and also civil court litigation against deadly polluters, where deep-pocketed industries can usually defeat underfunded citizen/worker law suits.

B.  The human right of Citizen Birthright Equity [societal self-investment].  Every child born under this new, Equitarian constitution and bill of rights, will be a “trust fund baby”, in that each new citizen born will be granted, funded partly by ‘Citizen Externality Equity’ pollution fees, partly by ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity social rents’, a lifetime fund, an ‘absolutely-portable’ individual/social-safety-net -- with legislated restraints on its expenditure, so as to check the “moral hazard” potential of such a trust fund -- to cover the basic necessities of human life-opportunity:  health care, college education, first home purchase, business formation funding, and reparations to victims in the event of conviction for a crime, etc. -- so that every child born has a stake in society -- has “skin in the game” -- and so that society has an investment in every child born, regardless of “what side of the tracks” that citizen was born on.  Should an individual’s fund be exhausted, e.g., due to serial criminal conviction reparations to victims, then that individual would fall back on more meager external social welfare provisions.

C.  The human right of Citizen Stewardship Equity.  Lack of access to means of production renders workers victims and playthings of the whims, and of the “lawful” depredations, of the owners of capital.  This human right provides workers with the option of ‘collective self-employment’, via a policy of ‘public venture “capital” ’, supporting ‘collective entrepreneurship’.  The Office of the popularly elected national Custodian of Social Property grants charters to per-legislation-qualifying citizen collectives, which then become Social Banks, also organized as democratically self-managed ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’ cooperatives of a special kind, each granted an equitable allocation of credits for the procurement of means of production.  The ‘Social Banks’ compete for the most perceivably-viable among other citizens’ self-organized collectives, that have per-legislation-qualifying business-plans, including By-Law requirements for internal democratic election/recall of their management teams, which, once their business plans are funded by a Social Bank, become ‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’.  The ‘Social Banks’ have “skin in the game”.  If they back too many Stewardship Cooperatives that go bankrupt, they lose income, and may even become insolvent themselves as a result.  Likewise, to survive, these ‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’ must prove themselves in market competition against other socialized producers’ cooperatives, and against remaining private capitalist firms, etc., that all produce for the same market(s).  The ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity socialized producers’ cooperatives’ do not collectively or privately “own” the means of production granted to them for their use by the ‘Social Bank(s)’ that back(s) them.  Those means of production are ‘‘‘Social Property’’’.  The citizen-members of the Stewardship Cooperatives do have the usufruct of, and stewardship over, those means of production, a fact manifested in the ‘social rents’ that they must pay, monthly, to the Office of the Custodian of Social Property.  These ‘social rents’ provide income to the ‘Social Banks’ that backed these co-ops, and also help to fund the ‘Citizen Birthright Equity socialized Trust Funds’, as well as to fund means of production procurement for new ‘Stewardship Cooperatives’, to finance ‘technodepreciation insurance’, etc.  Private capitalism is not outlawed, but private-capital-based firms will have to compete for workers against Stewardship Cooperatives wherein the workers themselves decide how workers are to be treated.

There has been a largely-successful ‘conspiracy among opponents’ -- an ‘antagonistic cooperation’ -- between the unelected real rulers of “western” [state-]capitalism, and those of “eastern” STATE-capitalism, to pass off the pure-state-bureaucratic-ruling-class  dominated, totalitarian police-state mass-murder regimes of “Soviet” Russia, Stalinist China, etc., as “Communism”.  In fact, those dictatorships present nothing at all like the ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ that Marx predicted.  They actually represent special, transient forms of Orwellian [proto-]State-CAPITALISM, so that a form of CAPITALISM is being fraudulently passed-off as Marxian communism. 

Most people today, when they say “Communism”, actually mean pure-state-bureaucratic-ruling-class State-CAPITALISM [as distinct from FASCISM or NAZIISM, a form of State-Capitalism in which the private-capital-owning ruling class is still either prominent, or still largely in-charge, sharing power with the One-Party-State bureaucracy].
 
THIS IS THE BIGGEST “BAIT-AND-SWITCH” FRAUD IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY TO-DATE!!! 

And it has been co-perpetrated by the “western” capitalist ruling class [e.g., the Rockefeller-eugenics political machine], and the Lenino-Trotskyoid, Lenino-Stalinoid, and Stalino-Maoid “MarxIST” PSEUDO-Marxians!

Toward the end of his life, Marx foresaw -- via his in depth study of capitalist political economy, of Russia in particular, etc. -- e.g., as he wrote in his draft letters to Vera Zasulich, and in the Preface to the latter edition of “Das Kapital”, that social revolution was imminent in Russia [Marx died in 1883.  The ‘“first modern Russian revolution’’’ erupted in 1905, 22 years later].

Marx wrote that, if the Russian Revolution was accompanied by a revolution in the capitalist West, e.g., in Germany, and throughout Western Europe, so that the advanced productive forces [‘‘‘industrial productivity’’’] extant there could facilitate accelerated development of the social forces of production in Russia, then Russia could escape the violence and the other horrors of capitalist development -- including of the “primitive accumulation” of industrial capital -- and accede more or less directly from the remnants of primitive communism still then-extant in Russia, to the “higher communism” that would then also co-emerge in Europe, and, later, worldwide.

In this passage, Marx did not explicitly predict what would ensue if the Russian Revolution was isolated in Russia, and surrounded by hostile, still-capitalist European and other powers.  But the latter is exactly what did happen, with the eruption of the ‘‘‘second modern Russian revolution’’’ in 1917, and the failure of the 1918 revolutions in Germany and elsewhere.

Thus, Russia could not escape the horrors of the “primitive accumulation” of industrial capital, which were made even more horrendous by the desperation of the Leninist state-bureaucratic ruling class to crash-develop a “military-industrial complex” [cf. Eisenhower], so as to deter further invasions by, and “save its ass” from, the encircling, hostile, private-capitalist military forces, hell-bent on snuffing-out both the Leninist ruling class, and the remnants of the real Soviets [workers’ councils] revolution in Russia.

Lenino-Stalinoid State-CAPITALISM became a new pathway for the horrific “primitive accumulation” of industrial capital in the underdeveloped, imperialized semi-periphery of the core capitalist system in Western Europe and North America, falsely labeled “Communism” by both its Western enemies and its Lenino-Stalinoid ruling class promoters and beneficiaries.


This query also calls to my mind the “dialectical theory of everything” developed by a group that is relentlessly carrying forward Marx’s, unfinished, work [by which I do NOT mean the state-bureaucratic ruling-class, dictatorial perversions of the Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, ..., Castroist, and Unist state-CAPITALIST ideologues, fraudsters, and mass murderers] in the five key domains which Marx and Engels were not able to bring to fruition before their deaths. 

Those unfinished domains of Marxian theory and practice include: 

(1) that of the detailed nature of the Marxian dialectic method;

(2) that of the dialectic of Nature, and of the Marxian immanent critique of the ideology that pervasively compromises the modern sciences, including, not just the economic and other social sciences, but the natural sciences and mathematics as well;

(3) clarification, including clear and ‘quanto-qualitative’ definition, of the central Marxian concept of “the social forces of production” -- of ‘the human-societal self-force of human-societal self-re-production’ -- in relation to a ‘Meta-Darwinian’ concept of human-species ‘‘‘fitness’’’ in terms of the rate of human-societal self-reproduction, as well as the interrelated clarification of the core Marxian concept of “the social relations of production”, e.g., of the “capital-relation”, of the “money-relation”, of the “commodity-relation”, etc.  This ‘Meta-Darwinian’ theory recognizes the role of ‘the human Phenome’ as well as of the ‘the human Genome’ in increasing the ‘self-force’, and thereby the rate, of human society in accelerated expanded social self-reproduction;

(4) that of the detailed nature of the liberatory, Political-ECONOMIC-DEMOCRATIC society -- founded upon the new, unprecedented social relation of production -- which is the “lawful” higher successor system to [State-]Capitalism;

(5) that of the detailed causation-dynamics of the ever-worsening catastrophic global economic depression-crises, wars, and genocides that advise us all of the growing need for us to transcend [state-]capitalism, by creating that successor system, of grass roots Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.

That group is Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [see www.dialectics.org ].



Regards,

Miguel







Sunday, May 27, 2018

Response Regarding Marx’s “Greatest Error”.







Response Regarding Marx’s Greatest Error.







Dear Readers,



I recently responded to an internet query, accessible via --


-- which was stated as follows:

What was Karl Marx's greatest error? Was it his desire to abolish the family, abolish personal property, abolish religion, or is it the entire dialectical materialism philosophy?


I replied approximately as follows --

“This question seems to be infected with the lies about Marx’s views spread by those who hope to block as many as possible from ever learning of Marx’s real views, and also with the ideologies [secular religions] concocted by the sadistic, socio-pathic, power-addicted, absolute-power-corrupted Leninoid, Trotskyoid, Stalinoid, Maoid, etc. fraudsters and mass murderers, who falsely claim the mantle of Marx. 

First of all, the term “abolish” is, in the context of translations to English of Marx’s work, typically a mis-translation of the German word “aufheben”, which does NOT mean suppression by police-state coercion, but which means the combined self-transformation, self-elevation, and self-conservation of a given social formation. 

Moreover, Marx never proposed to “abolish” the family.  He thought that the family would transform itself in response to changes in the social relations of social reproduction, away from capital as the main social relation of social reproduction. 

He thought that mystified, contra-empirical ideologies, e.g., religions, would also change and, in part, dissolve, naturally, with the change in the social relations of social reproduction, away from the “mystifying” capital-relation. 

Marx NEVER sought to “abolish” personal property.  He foresaw a possible future in which the means of society-[re]production would cease to be private property, and would become, instead, social property, utilized and administered democratically.  The questioner here appears to be confusing Marx’s views with the views of ANTI-Marxian “MarxISTS like, e.g., Pol Pot.  Remember what Marx himself said about “MarxISTS:

‘‘‘As for myself, I am not a Marxist.’’’ 


In my view the main error in Marx’s work/strategy is that he did not live long enough -- or give sufficient priority, while he yet lived -- to developing a detailed hypothesis as to the constitution of the core social relation of social self-reproduction at the heart of the “lawful” successor system to the social system centered upon the capital-relation as dominant social relation of society-[re]production.

This helped to leave room for the ideological perversion of Marx’s work, arising from the underdeveloped semi-periphery of the core capitals-system, in the form of totalitarian, mass-murdering, bureaucratic state-capitalism, disguised as Marxian “socialism” or “communism”, in the ideologies of the various, semi-peripheral, mass-murderous Lenino-Stalinoid, Lenino-Trotskyoid, and Stalino-Maoid nation-state police-state dictatorships.

This query calls to my mind the findings, so far, of a group that is relentlessly carrying forward Marx’s -- unfinished -- work [by which I do NOT mean the state-bureaucratic ruling-class, dictatorial perversions of the Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, ..., Castroist, and Unist state-CAPITALIST ideologues, fraudsters, and mass murderers] in the four key domains which Marx and Engels were not able to bring to fruition before their deaths.

Those unfinished domains of Marxian theory and practice include:

(1) that of the detailed nature and justification of the Marxian dialectic method;

(2) that of the dialectic of Nature, and of the Marxian, immanent, critique of the ideology that pervasively compromises the modern sciences, including, not just the economic and other social sciences, but the natural sciences and mathematics as well;

(3) that of the detailed nature of the liberatory, Political-ECONOMIC-DEMOCRATIC society which is the “lawful” higher successor system to the present, [State-]Capitalist system;

(4) that of the detailed causation-dynamics of the ever-worsening catastrophic global economic depression-crises, wars, and genocides that advise us all of the growing need for us to transcend [state-]capitalism, by creating that successor system, of grass roots Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.

That group is Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [see www.dialectics.org ].”



Regards,

Miguel







Thursday, May 24, 2018

Eric Temple Bell predicted Karl Seldon [sort of].







Eric Temple Bell predicted Karl Seldon [sort of].







Dear Readers,


Eric Temple Bell predicted Karl Seldon!

He did so in 1937, well before Karl Seldon’s birth, but soon after Kurt Gödel’s proofs of the ‘“self-inconsistency OR self-incompleteness”’ of any mathematical axiomatic systems capable of formulating at least “Natural” Numbers arithmetic, or more.  It was such theorems -- by Gödel, by Löwenheim and Skolem, etc. -- that launched what Seldon calls “the [then-inadvertently] dialectical, immanent critique, or self-critique, of modern mathematics.”

Eric Temple Bell stated this prediction in chapter twenty-five of his famous book on mathematics history, and of mathematicians’ short biographies, entitled -- with all of the male chauvinism of his times -- Men of Mathematics:  The Lives and Achievements of the Great Mathematicians from Zeno to Poincare”.  No mention of Hypatia here, not to mention of Sophie Germain, or of Emmy Noether, or of Sofya Kovalevskaya.

Chapter twenty-five, “The Doubter”, contains Bell’s short biography of the arch anti-Cantorian, Leopold Kronecker.

Bell’s prediction of the core ‘biography’ of our Karl Seldon is stated in a single paragraph on page 469 of that book, the third page of that chapter, as follows --

Kronecker’s university career was a repetition on a larger scale of his years at school:  he attended lectures on the classics and the sciences and indulged his bent for philosophy by profounder studies than any he had as yet undertaken, particularly in the system of Hegel.  The last is emphasized because some curious and competent reader may be moved to seek the origin of Kronecker’s mathematical heresies in the abstrusities of Hegel’s dialectic -- a quest wholly beyond the powers of the present writer.  Nevertheless there is a strange similarity between some of the weird unorthodoxies of recent doubts concerning the self-consistency of mathematics -- doubts for which Kronecker’s “revolution” was partly responsible -- and the subtleties of Hegel’s system.  The ideal candidate for such an undertaking would be a Marxian communist with a sound training in Polish many-valued logic, though in what incense tree this rare bird is to be sought God only knows.[italics emphasis added by M.D.].

Thus, Eric Temple Bell predicted Karl Seldon -- sort of.

Indeed, the NQ arithmetic/algebra for dialectics, discovered by Karl Seldon on 7 April 1996, can be well-described, in its interpretation as a contra-Booleanarithmetic, with a contra-Boolean algebra, not merely as a “many-valued logic”, but as a potentially infinivalentalgebraic dialectical logic, and, moreover, as a potentially infinite-dimensional logic, both in terms of something like Aristotle’s concept of potential infinity, not actual infinity à la Cantorian mysticism.

Much of the work of Karl Seldon, and of his collaborators, including work by yours truly, is available for free-of-charge download via --



Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,
Member, F.E.D.,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison






Tuesday, May 22, 2018

‘''The Opposition of humanity [human Nature] versus [exo-human] Nature, and Its Dialectical Resolution’.







The Dialectic of the Opposition Between human Nature and/versus exo-human Nature, and Its Resolution.







Dear Readers,


The F.E.D. General Council has recently released a dialectogram describing The Opposition of human Nature &/versus exo-human Nature, & Its Resolution.

A JPG image of this dialectogram is scheduled to be posted to the F.E.D. main web site’s Briefs Page, embedded in the text of E.D. Brief #11 --



For your convenience, I have also posted this text image below, and I also plan to post, here, the text of E.D. Brief #11, after it is released by the F.E.D. General Council.


Regards,

Miguel





















  

Friday, May 11, 2018

New Internet Dialogue Opens on the F.E.D. ‘Dialectical Mathematics’.







New Internet Dialogue Opens on the F.E.D. Dialectical Mathematics.







Dear Readers,


A reddit participant recently posted, and commented upon, an F.E.D. dialectogram, on one of our conjectures as to the opening triad of our version of the dialectic of Nature, at --



The dialectogramthere posted is a variant of the following --




This posters comments included the following --

“This is true art.  I am actually in awe of how much effort this person has put into this stuff.”



I responded, on behalf of F.E.D., as follows --


“The 9 axioms, grounding the arithmetic/algebra for dialectics applied in the diagram posted above, are stated, within the www.dialectics.org web site, at --





“That these 9 axioms incorporate a version of the first four, “first-order logic” axioms of the “[Dedekind/]Peano Postulates” for the system of arithmetic of the “Natural” Numbers, makes this arithmetic/algebra for dialectic a “non-standard model” of the Natural Numbers.  Such were foretold by the co-application, at the level of “first order” logic, of the Gödel Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems -- two of the deepest theorems of modern “mathematical logic”. An intuitive, dialectical derivation of the system of these “dialectical meta-Natural meta-numbers” from that of the standard “Natural Numbers” is available, within the www.dialectics.org web site, via --




“That these 9 axioms suffice to deductively derive, as a theorem, by a simple direct proof, a STRONG CONTRARY to what Boole called his “fundamental law of thought”, or “law of duality”, which is the core “axiom” of original Boolean algebra, makes this arithmetic/algebra of dialectic a “contra-Boolean algebra” -- an algebraic dialectical logic.  This simple direct proof is presented, within the www.dialectics.org web site, here --





“The resulting dialectical logic is a “supplementary opposite” to Boole’s algebra for formal logic, one that “aufheben”-contains/conserves Boole’s “fundamental law”, but which also “aufheben”-elevates and “aufheben”-negates Boole’s fundamental law for formal logic.  This new, “contra-Boolean” algebra expands Boole’s “law of [EXO-]duality” into a more universal, more general “law of ENDO-duality”.” 

“The www.dialectics.org site also recognizes a third axioms-system of dialectical- algebraic logic, one which reconciles the opposition between the Boolean and “contra-Boolean” algebras, in[to] a single ‘uni-system’ of dialectical algebra, incorporating and integrating both.” 

“For more about this third system of algebraic dialectical logic, and about the entire, systematic “dialectic/systems-progression of the systems of algebraic [dialectical] logic” -- of “algebras for [dialectical] logic(s)” -- see: