Saturday, March 30, 2013

Part 2. of 8.: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

Dear Readers,

This blog-entry contains the
second part of my serialization, within this blog, of the E.A.g.’s [Equitist Advocacy group's] “Way Forward” proposal, entitled Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism -- Political-Economic Democracy, with my own edits added to their text, for its improvement [improvement, at least, to my way of thinking!]. 

In my opinion, this text is too valuable 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].

This text is under the Equitist Advocacy group’s omni-copyright umbrella [see item 6, “Universal Property”, in text at:  ], so there are no “copyright violation” issues to hinder such circulation, whether attributed anonymously, or under the name or pseudonym of the improving author, or under the name of the Equitist Advocacy group itself [although, in that case, the fact of the “improvement” of their original text by (an)other author(s) should be explicitly noted, obviously].

Here are the links to the original version --



Part 2. of 8. --

Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism -- Political-Economic Democracy



Marx:  Joint-Stock Equity Capital as the Perfected Form of Capital, Transitional to 'Democratic Communism' [i.e., to Marxian Democracy]

In the context of this subject-matter, we find it profoundly informative to see what Marx actually had to say, in the very core, and in the final “volume”, of his written works, about the immanent emergence — from out of the very heart of the capital-relation itself — of the core social relation of production of 'democratic communist' society, i.e., of what we call Marxian [complete] Democracy, or Political-Economic Democracy, in the transition from capital-relation-based society to 'democratic communist' society --

"The general remarks, which the credit system so far elicited from us, were the following: ...

III. Formation of stock companies. Thereby: ...

3) Transformation of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, administrator of other people's capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist.  Even if the dividends which they receive include the interest and the profit of enterprise, i.e., the total profit (for the salary of managers is, or should be, simply the wage of a specific type of skilled labour, whose price is regulated in the labour-market like that of any other labour), this total profit is henceforth received only in the form of interest, i.e., as mere compensation for owning capital that is now entirely divorced from the function in the actual process of reproduction, just as this function in the person of the manager is divorced from ownership of capital. ...

In stock companies the function is divorced from capital ownership, hence also labour is entirely divorced from ownership of means of production and surplus-labour.  This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property.  On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of the associated producers, into social functions.

This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction, which prima facie represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production.  It manifests itself as such a contradiction in its effects.  It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference.  It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators, and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promoting, stock issuance, and stock speculation. It is private production without the control of private property. ...

The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.  But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour [we call this transitional form 'workers' capital[ism]' — E.A.g.].

They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage. Without the factory system arising out of the capitalist mode of production there could have been no co-operative factories. Nor could these have developed without the credit system arising out of the same mode of production. The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist enterprises into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale.  [in the case of today’s Mondragon co-operatives, an international scale -- M.D.] ...

The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one, and positively in the other. ...

The credit system appears as the main lever of over-production and over-speculation in commerce solely because the reproduction process, which is elastic by nature, is here forced to its extreme limits, and is so forced because a large part of the social capital is employed by people who do not own it, and who consequently tackle things quite differently than the owner, who anxiously weighs the limitations of his private capital in so far as he handles it himself.

This simply demonstrates the fact that the self-expansion of capital based on the contradictory nature of capitalist production permits an actual free development only up to a certain point, so that in fact it constitutes an immanent fetter and barrier to production, which is continually broken through by the credit system.

Hence, the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market.  [M.D.:  Until the descendance phase of the capitals-system “lawfully” manifests as the defense against technodepreciation-driven, ‘dis-profitable-ization’-motivated, and capital-value-annihilation-motivated, global war against the productive forces, by the ruling, finance/energy [i.e., oil] plutocracy, as we have seen, in which capital becomes “an immanent fetter and barrier” to any further growth, or even to any mere maintenance, of the level of ‘the social self-force of societal self-reproduction’ with a vengeance!].

It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise the material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.

At the same time credit accelerates the violent eruption of this contradictioncrises — and thereby the elements of disintegration of the old mode of production.

The two characteristics immanent in the credit system are, on the one hand, to develop the incentive of capitalist production, enrichment through the exploitation of the labour of others, to the purest and most colossal form of gambling and swindling, and to reduce more and more the number of the few who exploit the social wealth; on the other hand, to constitute the form of transition to a new mode of production.

It is this ambiguous nature, which endows the principal spokesmen of credit from Law to Isaac Pereire with the pleasant character mixture of swindler and prophet."

[Karl Marx; Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy (vol. III), ‘‘‘The Shapes Taken-On by The Reproductions-Process of/by Capitals Overall’’’, Chapter XXVII, “The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production”; International Publishers Co., Inc. (NY:  1967); pages 435-441; bold, italic, colored, and underlined emphasis added by E.A.g. and M.D.]

At almost the earliest, opposite end of Marx’s career as a dialectical, immanent critic of the ideology-vitiated science of capitalist classical political economy, in a letter to Engels [Marx to Engels, April 2, 1858, in MEW 29, page 312, reproduced in Rubel on MarxFive Essays; Cambridge University Press (NY:   1981), page 216], Marx writes of the planned structure of his critique of the political economy of the system of «kapitals», with even greater explicitude regarding the transitional character of the emergence of the “share capital” «species», i.e. the “capital equity stock” «species», of the social relation of production called “capital” --

"Capital is divided into four sections.
  1. Capital en général [in Fr.] (This is the material of the first brochure). [M.D.:  systematic-dialectical, method-of-presentation-al first thesis category.]
  2. Competition or the reciprocal action of the many capitals.  [M.D.:  ‘presentational’ first contra-thesis category -- ‘reverse-«aufheben»’-descent de-meta-monadization decomposition of 1.].
  3. Credit, where capital appears as the general element in opposition to the many capitals.  [M.D.:  presentational first uni-thesis category -- ‘‘‘complex unity’’’, ‘categorial hybridization’,  or dialectical synthesis of 2 with 1.].
  4. Share capital as the most perfect form (assuming the character of communism), together with all its contradictions.  [M.D.:  ‘presentational’ second contra-thesis category -- the ‘combination of capitals opposite to competition of capitals character of 2.]
[bold, italic, colored, and underlined emphasis added by E.A.g. and M.D.]."

What are we to make of these positings, by Marx, of capital equity stock, and of its ‘‘‘stockholder democracy’’’, as a close kin to ‘‘the associated mode of production’’’, i.e., to democratic communism, or to Marxian Democracy?

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Part 1. of 8.: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

Dear Readers,

This blog-entry contains the first part of my serialization, within this blog, of the Equitist Advocacy group's “Way Forward” proposal, entitled Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism -- Political-Economic Democracy, with my own edits added to their text, for its improvement [improvement, at least, to my way of thinking!]. 


In my opinion, this text is too valuable 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].

This text is under the Equitist Advocacy group’s omni-copyright umbrella, so there are no “copyright violation” issues to hinder such circulation, whether attributed anonymously, or under the name or pseudonym of the improving author, or under the name of the Equitist Advocacy group [although, in that case, the fact of the “improvement” of their original text by (an)other author(s) should be explicitly noted, obviously].

Here are the links to the original version, by the Equitist Advocacy group --



Part 1. of 8. --

Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism -- Political-Economic Democracy


Is there no alternative to our plight — to the horrific destiny of humanocidal totalitarian degeneration described in Global Strategic Hypothesis:  Towards A Strategy For Humanity and in The Political Economic Law Of Motion of Modern, Capital-based Society -- The 'Sociotaxis' Toward Totalitarianism?

We believe that there is an alternative.

We have endeavored to introduce you to that alternative by way of the text below.

Initial Working Hypotheses


Hypothesis A

A Progressive Negation of Bourgeois Democracy, and of Bourgeois Civil Liberty, Means a Dialectical Negation Thereof.  What we seek is an «aufheben» extension, not an absolute abolition -- i.e., not an undialectical / abstract negation -- of bourgeois democracy.

It is suicidal, ahistorical, and simply wrong to condemn all of bourgeois democracy -- and all of bourgeois civil liberty -- as if they were without any substance at all.

The expanded social reproduction witnessed within the ascendance phase of capitalism, along with its advances in voting rights, and in civil liberties, afforded the majority of the populations of the core capitalist nations greater protections from the depredations of the capitalist class and of its state than they had ever before enjoyed — e.g., ending the “bad old days” when anyone who would not kiss the ass of the king was subject to summary beheading, or drawing and quartering — and made it possible for that majority to transcend the status of peasant and serf semi-slavery, to form unions, and to attain to “middle class” standards of living, for a time.

The post-1800s, decadent phase of capitalism, with its gathering social-entropic momentum of contracted social reproduction, its pro-contraction ideologies [e.g., most recently, ruling-class perverted, “People are Pollution” ‘ecologism’], and competitive-capitalism’s slide into hybrid, private-oligopoly/state-capitalist totalitarianism, is set to annihilate all of those gains, and has already, especially via the current “Designer Depression”, as well as during recent “Wars of Choice”, gone along way toward completing that reversal of fortunes for the majority, producing class.

However, this fact, in truth, only accentuates -- it does not erase -- the importance of those gains, and of the fight to resume and extend them -- except in the demented minds of nihilists.

Indeed, only the resumption, and extension, of those past gains in democratization, that are now in jeopardy, can any longer prevent their complete annihilation.

Now, only the extension of political democracy to encompass political-economic democracy, as defined below, can save even political democracy, and then only by also advancing political democracy beyond anything it ever was -- or could have been -- before, within the ‘‘‘real subsumption’’’ of all other/earlier-extant social relations [of production] by the capital-relation[-of-production].

Hypothesis B

A Progressive Negation of Capital-Value, and of The Exchange-Value in General, means a Dialectical Negation Thereof.  What we seek is also an «aufheben» conservation/elevation/transformation/ ‘‘‘real subsumption’’’ of prior value-forms, not their absolute abolition, i.e., not their undialectical / abstract negation.

When the pre-capitalist ‘money-praxis’, and the pre-capitalist money form of [exchange-]value, emerged from out of the ‘self-densifying’ expanded self-reproduction of the pre-capitalist ‘commodity/barter-praxis’, and form of value, the “commodity-relation[-of-production]” was not abolished.

On the contrary, it was «aufheben»-conserved and «aufheben»-transformed in and by the ‘money-praxis’.

It was mediated and subsumed by and as the pre-capitalist money-catalyzed “circulation-praxis”, i.e., by the ‘money-mediated-circulation of commodities’.

The ‘commodity-barter praxis’, the “commodity-relation” as social relation of production, emerged because it had use-value for the human agents of that epoch of human political economy.

The commodity-form continued to have use-value for them when it was superseded, as the ‘meristemal’ social relation of production, by the “money-relation[-of-production]” -- the ‘commodity-barter-relation’ as subordinated to and as ‘‘‘subsumed by’’’, or ‘‘‘appropriated by’’’, that successor social relation of production, called “money”.

The ‘commodity barter-relation’ first emerged as a new value-«species» of ‘goods-value’; of “use-value”; i.e., of “use”; of “utility” — as an ‘‘‘indirect use’’’, or exchange-use of goods [i.e., as a new mode of use of goods produced by one’s own «locus», to -- via barter-trading transactions -- acquire other goods produced by other «loci», if perhaps not by one's own] -- in contrast to, and as an alternative opportunity to, the ‘‘‘direct use’’’, or ‘‘‘direct consumption use’’’ of the same goods.
When the productivity -- “productive force” -- of one’s own community in producing a given good made it available in such abundance as to make part of its volume useless there, trading that “surplus” volume with other communities, where it was still scarce/produced with low productivity, in return for a good that was still scarce/produced with low productivity in one’s own community, became a better use for that surplus volume of that good, than keeping it -- e.g., storing it, or letting it lay about unused until deteriorated -- or discarding it.

But this new «species» of ‘‘‘exchange-use value’’’ grew so ‘socially-large’, relative to the old «species» of ‘goods-value’/’gifts-value’, as the communities’ productive forces increased more generally, that this new «species» of the uses of goods came to inaugurate a new «genos» in its own right, the «genos» of [initially commodity-barter-based] ‘‘exchange-value’’’.

Still later, but again, when the ‘capital-praxis’, and the capital form of [exchange-]value, emerged from out of the ‘self-densifying’ expanded self-reproduction of the ‘money praxis’ and form of value, via the further growth of the force of social  reproduction, the “money-relation-of-production” was not abolished, nor even was money’s predecessor form of value, and social relation of production -- the “commodity-relation-of-production” -- abolished.

On the contrary, the ‘money-praxis’ and the ‘commodity-praxis’ were both «aufheben»-conserved and «aufheben»-transformed in and by the ‘capital-praxis’.
Both commodity and money were subsumed by the capital-catalyzed ‘‘‘capital-circulation/capital-reproduction-praxis and capital-reproduction-process’’’, e.g., as “money-capital and as “commodity-capital, respectively.

The ‘money-praxis’, the “money-relation” as social relation of production, emerged because it had use-value for the human agents of that epoch of human political economy.

The money-form continued to have use-value when it was superseded, as the ‘meristemal’ [the “leading-edge”, “growing-edge”, or “vanguard”] social relation of production, by the “capital-relation”.

The ‘money-relation’ was subordinated to and as ‘‘‘subsumed by’’’, or ‘‘‘appropriated by’’’, that successor social relation of production, called “capital”.

The ‘money-relation’, before it ever could become a new «genos» of exchange-value in its own right, first emerged as a new value-«species» of ‘commodity-value’; of ‘barter-value’ -- in the form of the protracted historical series of ‘‘‘money-commodities’’’.

The role of a ‘‘‘money-commodity’’’ tended, eventually, to devolve upon the ‘gold-commodity’, or upon another ‘‘‘commoditized’’’ “precious metal”, given the money-functions-advantageous physical characteristics of such metals, as the form of use-value in terms of which the exchange-values -- eventually, the prices -- of all other commodities could best be expressed, forming a “universal equivalent” medium of expression for the exchange-values of all other commodities.

But this new «species» of ‘‘‘exchange-value’’’ soon grew so ‘socially-large’, relative to the old «species» of ‘commodity-barter exchange-value’, that it came to inaugurate a new «genos» in its own right, the «genos» of ‘‘monetary exchange-values’’’, or of, e.g., ‘‘‘gold-weight-expressed prices’’’.

Next in this progression of human ‘social relations of production’, the ‘capital-relation’ first emerged as a new value-«species» of ‘‘‘money-value’’’, and of the ‘‘‘money-mediated circulation of commodities’’’ -- namely, as an inversion of that money-mediated ‘circulation-praxis’, of the trading-sequence, i.e., of the ‘alienation-sequence’, or of the ‘circulation-sequence’ of ownership, the partial replacement of the ‘‘‘commodity → money → different commodity’’’ praxis, by the reversed exchange-sequence, ‘alienation-sequence’, or ‘circulation-sequence’ of “mercantile capital”:  ‘“money → commodity → more money”’, wherein the aim of the latter sequence of the “sellings”, or “alienations”, of property is no longer the acquisition of a different commodity, but the acquisition of profit, of more money than was advanced, or “invested”, at the start of the latter ‘circulation-sequence’.

Thus, the capital form was initially confined to circulation, in the forms of a mercantile capitalism, and/or of a money-lending, “usurers’ capitalism, both representing sub-«species» of capital that initially had primarily only a parasitical relation to production, and that only ‘form-ally”’ dominated, subsumed, or re-shaped the production-processes of goods/commodities.

Only later, in the forms of the vast latifundial slave-labor-based plantations of the ancient Mediterranean world, and of the late medieval/early modern Americas, both producing agricultural commodities for sale on a large-scale, to markets approaching a world-wide level of expanse, did capital -- did human beings as the agents of the capital-praxis -- began to re-shape human production in its own image.

Indeed, only with the advent of the modern wage-labor version / sub-«species» of the capital-relation -- of the non-slavery-based selling of labor-capability in return for a wage; of the alienation of work-capability and of work-life-time -- and, thus, with the emergence of “industrial capitalism” -- did the capital-relation come to real-ly” dominate and subsume, and to comprehensively re-shape, to its own requirements, the human production-process; the human labor-process.

That is, this new «species» of ‘‘‘exchange-value’’’ grew so ‘socially-large’, with the further growth of the self-reproductive force of human society, relative to the old «species» of ‘money-commodity exchange-value’, and of the ‘commodity-barter exchange-value’ that came before it, and that still continued, that this new “capital” «species» of value came to inaugurate a new «genos» in its own right, the «genos» of ‘‘‘capital-value’’’; of ‘the auto-catalytic form of [exchange-]value’; of ‘‘‘money-which-makes-more-money’’’, or of ‘‘‘profit-making money’’’, and of self-compounding ‘profit-making profit’.

Likewise, when the ‘capital-praxis’, the capital form of [exchange-]value, or capital as ‘meristemal’ social relation of production, is superseded, subsumed by, and subordinated to, its successor social relation of production, it will not and cannot be immediately and absolutely abolished, i.e., it cannot be abstractly negated, but it will be dialectically negated; «aufheben»-negated -- conserved, elevated, transformed, and subsumed in and by a new «species» of human social relations [of production], a new «species» of human[e] values, which will have grown up from within it, growing out of it, to the point of outgrowing it, and beyond, thus to superseding it, becoming a new «genos» in its own right.

The ‘capital-praxis’, the “capital-relation” as predominant social relation of production, the capital form of [exchange-]value, was always, from its very inception, problematic, “self-contradictory”.

Moreover, it becomes ever more so, throughout its historical self-development, ultimately becoming ‘un-practice-able’, whether or not that ‘im-practice-ability’ manifests in the form of its supersession, or in the form of ‘‘‘the mutual ruin of the contending classes’’’, and of the collapse into a “New Dark Age”.

But the “capital-relation” was never a useless, never an avoidable as ‘‘‘instar’’’ of human-species progression -- never without merit as a transient, transitory, and transitional means of achieving growth of the social self-force of social reproduction, actualized as expanded human social reproduction, to the point of achieving escape-velocity from the “attractor” of the “capital-relation”, and the capital-centered form of alienated-human society.

Nor will it become absolutely useless after its ‘‘‘real subsumption’’’ by its immanent successor as ‘meristemal’ social relation of production.

It will, in particular, remain an indispensable source of economic “checks-and-balances”, against the abuse of monopoly -- against the catastrophic collapse of product and service-product use-value and safety -- that predictably arises from monopolies of supply.

E.g., the conservation of a competitive market for consumer goods produced by competing producer-stewarded and producer-democratically-managed enterprises will conserve that economic “check-and-balance”, protecting producer-consumers and their families from monopoly abuses -- either by state-managed monopoly enterprises such as have already, in human history, demonstrated their propensity for abuse -- or by others among the associated producers, e.g., by monopoly producers-cooperatives.
What is ‘essence-ial’ to the successor system of human sociality is that the “capital-relation” be no longer allowed to seize, to attempt to organize, the social-reproductive totality; that the “capital-relation” be subsumed by, subordinated to, and contained within its successor social relation of production, that of ‘political-economic democracy, as defined below.

Hypothesis C

The Transition from Capitalism to Democratic Communism is a Dialectical, that is, an «Aufheben», Transition.  ‘‘‘Democratic-Communist Society’’’, or ‘realized political-economy’, i.e., political-economic democracy, will arise, not by the abolition / abstract negation of the capital «species» of equity -- of ‘‘‘capital-equity’’’, ‘internality-equity’, or “capital equity stock” / “joint-stock-company” “stockholder democracy” — and of the capitalist market, but by the dialectical, or selfaufheben» negation, i.e., by the conservation/elevation/transformation, of that initial, «arché species» of “equity”, that is, via ‘‘‘further speciation’’’ within the “equity” «genos», beyond its first, “capital equity” «species».

This means the completion of the «genos»’ of equity -- via the emergence and development of additional «species» of the “equity” «genos», and via the ‘‘‘real domination’’’, or ‘‘‘real subsumption’’’, of that «arché species» of the ‘generalized equity’ «genos», namely, of the ‘capital-equity’, or ‘internality equity’, «species», by those successor /progressor «species» of the “equity” «genos», namely, by those «species» of generalized equity for which we use the following names --

  • The Citizen Externality Equity «species» of the equity «genos»;

  • The Citizen Birthright Equity «species» of the equity «genos»;

  • The Citizen Stewardship Equity «species» of the equity «genos»;

  • The Citizen Allocational Equity «species» of the equity «genos»

-- as defined in the sequel.

Hypothesis D

Human-Social Production Requires Human-Social Pre-Imagination.  In Capital (vol. I), Marx wrote the following about the human process of production -- in contra-distinction to the processes of all of the «species» within the «genos» of the ‘‘‘social animals’’’ -- as a process that requires the human pre-imagination of the product which is to be produced, and also as an ontological, dialectical ‘‘‘internal contradiction of’’’, or ‘‘‘self-contradiction within’’’, Nature, i.e., as an ‘intra-duality’ of Nature -- of Nature conceived as maximal self-developing, dialectical totality:

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and [other parts of -- M.D.] Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself and [other parts of -- M.D.] Nature.  He opposes himself to [other parts of -- M.D.] Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his own body, in order to appropriate Nature's [other -- M.D.] productions in a form adapted to his own wants.  By thus acting on the external world, [i.e., on parts of Nature external to its human[ized] part(s) -- M.D.] and changing it, he at the same time [self-reflexively, self-refluxively acts upon himself and -- M.D.] changes his own nature.  He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway.  We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal.  An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage.   We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human.  A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells.  But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.  At the end of every labour process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.  He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realizes a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.

-- [Karl Marx, CapitalA Critique of Political Economy (vol. I), ‘‘‘The Productions-Process of/by Capitals’’’,; International Publishers Co., Inc. (NY:  1967), pages 177-178, emphasis added by M.D.].

We hold that the above considerations apply also to the process of the conscious human production of new social relations of [human society's self-re-]production -- in particular, to the process of our creation of ‘democratic-communist’ society, as a way out of the “lawful” descent of late global capitalism into the hell of humanocidal totalitarian state-capitalism -- from out of the materials of capital-relation society, and also out of those of the surviving/subsumed previous social relations of human society-production.

If the conception of ‘democratic-communist society’ -- of its ‘‘‘historical-specificity’’’; of its social form as an ‘historical species’, a ‘temporal species’ of human-species development; of its ‘‘‘historically-specific’’’ social relation of production -- could be rightfully said to have been acceptably left in partial ‘vaguery’ during the times of, and in the works of, Marx and Engels -- both those they published and, to the extent known to date, those that they left unpublished -- under the argument that it was still too early, in the history of the “capital-relation”, to determine the determinations of its successor social relation of production in detail, the same can no longer be rightfully said today.

Situated, as we are, deep in the descendant phase of the global «Kapitals»-system, a descendant phase that began circa 1907, over a hundred years ago; situated, as we are, at the very extremity of human prehistory, on the precipice of the great transition -- or of ‘‘‘the mutual ruin of the contending classes’’’, and with it, the ruin of the human species and of the biosphere of this planet entire -- we can no longer afford such a luxury of ignorance.

Relying on ‘‘‘spontaneity’’’, on the ‘‘‘spontaneous discoveries’’’ of “the masses” in action, after the fact of their initiating global social revolution, is, quite simply, nothing but a recipe for catastrophe.

It is a careless and irresponsible «de facto» call to maximize the “transitional” loss of life that is already burgeoning world-wide, via the ruling class’s many ‘stealth genocide’ programs/pogroms, and to consign “the masses” to horrible deaths -- all for nought.  

On the contrary, social revolutionaries, to be worthy of that name, must do everything within their -- admittedly limited -- power to absolutely minimize the cost in loss of human life of the transition to a “post-prehistoric”, higher form of human[e] life.

We, they -- the peoples of the Earth -- must know in advance, in detail, what we are fighting for, what we are trying to build, or else we can never even get started; we cannot even begin to form any coherent programme, or strategy.

“The masses” are no dummies, doomed to service the ‘«noir»ist’ phantasy-romances of ‘intellectualoid’ Little Lord Fauntleroys, by obligingly -- and “spontaneously” -- spilling their blood by the billions to feed those ‘intellectualoids’ ’ fetid phantasy-lives!

The people of Earth will not risk everything, will not start a world revolution, based upon the directionless vagaries of the present anti-Leninist, anti-Stalinist left, that would merely risk even more chaos -- and, thence, via demands for the restoration of “order”, the handing over of their lives, and of what little social defenses, rights, and protections they have left, to the tender mercies of Lenino-Trotskyoid, Stalinoid, and/or Stalino-Maoid totalitarian state-capitalists, or, far more likely, and even worse -- with a vengeance -- to the now naked “iron fists” of the ‘Meta-Nazi’ totalitarian state-capitalists of the present global ruling class, who already rule them, with ever-more frayed “velvet gloves”.

“We” have already tried “spontaneity”:  Germany, 1918.

Workers driving back and forth in trucks, shaking rifles in the air, didn't cut it.

Such ritualisms and such incantations did not conjure up ‘democratic communism’.

Instead, they gave us the failure of the German ‘democratic communist revolution.

That, in turn, gave us the degeneration of any hope of a Russian ‘democratic communist revolution, which would have required the support of the advanced productive forces that would have been available to a German ‘political-economic democracy.

That, in turn, gave us Stalin.

That, in turn, gave us Hitler.

That, in turn, gave us the world of today, in which “socialism [in one country]” -- in which “[national] socialism” -- is so discredited, by Hitler, by Lenin, by Trotsky, by Stalin, and by Mao, ad nauseam, that real ‘‘‘democratic socialism’’’ -- ‘political-economic democracy -- the only hope of a “Way Forward” for humanity, is refused even cursory consideration by so many of us, crippling the chances for survival of humanity as a whole.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Plutocracy Publicly Proclaims Planned Planetary Population Plummeting. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Full TitleGLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES -- The Plutocracy Proudly, Publicly Proclaims Their Planned Planetary Population Plummeting Pandemic Plague Program/Pogrom.

The graffito below is our symbol for the 'Rocke-Nazi Plutocracy', the ultra-"deep-pocketed" "Eugenics" sponsors of the mere Nazis, the mass murderers of so many millions of human beings, already, and the would-be murderers of 95% of the rest of humanity, as documented, below, out of their own mouths.

NB:  The Final Section, Below, Documents Calls for Global Mass Extermination of 90%+ of the Human Race by Plutocracy Figures and their Spokes-Servants. The Introductory Sections Provide Background Needed to Comprehend this "Counter-Intuitive" Development in Capitalist Ruling Class Ideology.

For a similar view of the "Antihumanism" of the descendance-phase Ruling Class, with much historical background, see the new book [published in 2012] by Robert Zubrin, title:  MERCHANTS OF DESPAIR -- Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism.

Dear Readers,

Foreword.  "Technodepreciation" names the core mechanism of the Dialectic of "The Capital-Relation" -- of the self-negation of Capital as the 'self-de-value-ation of capital-value'.

Technodepreciation is the outer, external, competition-of-capitals enforcement mechanism for the Marxian "law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall", which, from the inner, immanent "law of [capital-]value" point of-view, results from the relative shortage of surplus-value owing to the growing dearth of variable capital in relation to constant capital as the societal self-force of expanding societal self-re-production grows in its ' "capital-relation"-al' form.

The following article traces the CATASTROPHIC psychohistorical impact of the growing phenomenon of the "technodepreciation" of concentrated fixed capital upon the ideology of its main owners, the capitalist ruling class, and, thereby, its CATASTROPHIC impact on the producer class:  us.

Preface.  The unified upshot of all of the earlier entries to this blog is as follows:  the capitalist system -- capital as predominant social relation of human society’s self-reproduction -- “lawfully” evolves a ‘‘‘humanocidal’’’ ruling class, and also produces, in embryonic forms, the social-reproductive force “raw materials”, and the social-relations of reproduction “raw materials”, for a possible transcendence of the rule of that ruling class, that could thereby also avert that class’s ‘‘‘humanocidal’’’ global agenda, and that would then ‘potentiate’ the opening of the first chapter of humanity’s first Global Renaissance” [Karl Seldon].

The political-economic “law of motion” of modern, capital-centered society -- of capital-value-dominated, human-alienated society -- is such that our global, planetary human society is converging, in this second, descendant phase of its capital-dominated stage -- for this planet, ever since about 1900 C.E. -- to a global system ruled by competing, but antagonistically-cooperating globalized “individual capitals” and hybrid, national state-/private-capitalisms.

The latter will tend to be totalitarian police states, engaged in regimes of “permanent war” against “external security threats”, but, in actuality, engaged mainly in a war against their own citizens, especially against their own producing classes, on behalf of a humanocidal ruling class which “owns”, and stands behind, the state-capitalist state and its bureaucracy, as previewed in the ruling class of the Nazi state, and in other “advanced capitalist” fascist-state-capitalist states.

The ‘‘‘psychohistorically lawful’’’ -- ‘‘‘psychohistorically’’’ predictable -- objective of the predominant, most internationally-influential ruling class of this global system -- is conditioned by a context of the emergence of an ‘unprecedentedly comprehensive’ potential capability for the automation of production, and of that ruling class’s secret development of its own degenerate precursors of “the meta-human”, i.e., of human-genomic self-re-engineering, of android robotics, and of cyborg prosthetics/bionics.

Such a ruling class comes to believe that it no longer needs much of the traditional advanced capitalist working class, and that the growing impoverishment of such an increasingly unemployed working class makes that working class a growing threat to the power of that ruling class -- a growing threat of the revolutionary overthrow of that ruling class and of its power -- a threat which, thus, in the mind of that ruling class, must be eliminated at all costs.

As a result, the predictable ruling class objective is catastrophic “population reduction” of the global human population of non-ruling, producing classes, e.g., the 95% elimination of that population called for by plutocracy spokes-servant and CNN mogul Ted Turner, among [many] other lower-plutocracy servants of the “high”, core plutocracy.

The many public proclamations of their planned planetary population plummeting by both spokes-servants and principals of this ruling plutocracy are sampled and commentated below, to provide yet further empirical evidence in support of the extraordinary global strategic hypothesis offered in this blog.

Introduction.  Fixed capital is both the ‘epitomeous’ form of capital-value, and, in effect, the prime focus of destruction, by the capital process itself, of capital-value, via what we have termed, in this blog, “technodepreciation” [in keeping with terminology developed by Karl Seldon].

A “law of motion” of modern, capital-centered society emerged from Karl Marx’s deep, dialectical, immanent critique of the ideology-vitiated science of capitalist “economics” -- of classical “political economy”.

His discovery of that “law” enabled him to foresee, along with so much else, and almost alone -- almost alone among the revolutionary critics of the then-emergent descendant phase of the global capitalist system, let alone among capitalist economists -- the immanent destiny of fixed capital. 

His fullest description of his discovery resides in the Grundrisse manuscript, his voluminous rough draft of his critique of political economy, and, as such, a text all the more pregnant with vast insights into the origins, and the inner dynamics, of the capitals-system, and into the predictable future history of humanity.  

That is, he was thereby enabled to foresee the future of the new kind of means of production that had emerged with, as native to, the capitalist system of society -- the industrial, factory machine as means of production.

This new kind if means of production is especially susceptible to massive “technodepreciation”, and is spawned by the second phase of the self-development of the capitals-system, the phase of the “real domination” of the capital-value-relation as human-social relation-of-production.

The destiny Marx foresaw for this new kind of means of production was one of what we would call, today, automation, a destiny that he -- with signal prescience -- called that of an automatic system of machineryautomatisches System der Maschinerie»]: 

“As long as the means of labour remains a means of labour in the proper sense of the term, such as it is directly, historically adopted by capital and included in its realization process, it undergoes a merely formal modification [M.D.:  what Marx elsewhere terms the [merely] formal domination of capital, or the formal subsumption of labour under capital”], by appearing now as means of labour not only in regard to its material side, but also at the same time as a particular mode of the presence of capital determined by its total process -- as fixed capital."

"But, once adopted into the production process of capital [M.D.:  of here meaning both the production process belonging to capital, and the production process which produces [more, new] capital; more, new capital-value; more of the capital-value social-relation-of-production], the means of labour passes through different [historical -- M.D.] metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form [M.D.:  i.e., the form most adequate to “the capital-relation”], and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages."

"In the machine, and even more in machinery as an automatic system, the use value, i.e. the material quality of the means of production, is transformed into an existence adequate to fixed capital, and to capital as such; and the form in which it was [first -- M.D.] adopted into the production process of capital, the direct means of labour, is superseded by a form posited by capital itself and corresponding to it.  . . ."

"The full development of capital, therefore, takes place -- or capital has posited the mode of production corresponding to it -- only when the means of labour has not only taken the economic form of fixed capital, but has also been suspended [M.D.:  «aufheben»] in its immediate form, and when fixed capital appears as a machine within the production process, opposite labour; and the entire production process appears not as subsumed under the direct skillfulness of the worker, but rather as the technological application of science."

"It is, hence, the tendency of capital to give production a scientific character; direct labour [is] reduced to a mere moment of this process."

"As with the transformation of value into capital, so does it appear in the further development of capital, that it presupposes a certain given historical development of the productive forces on one side -- science, too [is] among these productive forces -- and, on the other, drives and forces them further onwards."

"Thus the quantitative extent and the effectiveness (intensity) to which capital is developed as fixed capital indicate the general degree to which capital is developed as capital, as power over living labour, and to which it has conquered the production process as such [i.e., as capital -- M.D.]."

"Also, in the sense that it expresses the accumulation of objectified productive forces [M.D.:  e.g., of scientific knowledge as materialized in human-product physical objects], and likewise of objectified labour [M.D.:  of human labor-time congealed in physical product-objects, and, thus, as “time-binding” in and via such physical objects [cf. Korzybski]]."

"However, while capital gives itself its adequate form as use value within the production process only in the form of machinery, and other material manifestations of fixed capital, such as railways, etc. (to which we shall return later), this in no way means that this use value -- machinery as such -- is capital, or that its existence as machinery is identical with its existence as capital; any more than gold would cease to have its use value as gold if it were no longer money."

"Machinery does not lose its use value as soon as it ceases to be capital."

"While machinery is the most appropriate form of the use value of fixed capital, it does not at all follow that therefore subsumption under the social relation of capital is the most appropriate and ultimate social relation of production for the application of machinery."

"To the degree that labour time -- the mere quantity of labour -- is posited by capital as the sole determinant element, to that degree does direct labour and its quantity disappear as the determinant principle of production -- of the creation of use values -- and is reduced both quantitatively, to a smaller proportion, and qualitatively, as an, of course, indispensable but subordinate moment, compared to general scientific labour [M.D.:  i.e., compared to universal labour1], technological application of natural sciences, on the one side, and to the general productive force arising from social combination [M.D.:  i.e., from cooperative labour2; the nonlinear, that is, disproportionate, amplified effect of the objectively-socialized labour, of many workers, organized by capital, versus the productivity of a similar number of workers as isolated producers][Gleiderung] in total production on the other side -- a combination which appears as a natural fruit of social labour (although it is a [M.D.:  human-]historic product).”

[Karl Marx, GrundrisseFoundations of the Critique of Political Economy, transl. & ed. by Martin Nicolaus, Penguin Books [Middlesex, U.K.:  1973], pp. 692-700, bold italic shadowed and underlined emphasis added by M.D.].

However, Marx’s theory of the “economic law of motion of modern society”, though it explicitly recognized the problematic of the phenomenon that Karl Seldon names “technodepreciation”, did not yet explicitly link it -- at least, not in the extant sources -- to the heart of that “law of motion”, to Marx’s “law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall”. 

Marx explained the “law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall”, in the “inner law” domain [versus in the domain of the outer, external enforcement by the competition-of-capitals], as the result of a developing relative dearth of variable capital-value, because variable capital-value is the sole source of profit-providing surplus-value, and because, while both the variable capital-value and the constant capital-value components of total capital-value output tend to grow in absolute magnitude, the growth of constant capital-value tends to outstrip that of variable capital-value, as an expression of the growth of the social forces of production [e.g., of the growth of labor-productivity].

Often, Marx even linked what Seldon names “technodepreciation” [Marx uses other terms, e.g., “moral depreciation” [as opposed to “physical depreciation, or “wear and tear” depreciation] to the “counteracting influences” to the “the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall”, which raises the rate of profit ratio by lowering the value of the constant capital component of its denominator, once the “write-down” of that ‘technodepreciated’ denominator is in the past.  But Marx often so linked without also noting that the “write-off” of that “write-down” -- the subtraction of the “vanished” portion of the original price/cost/value of that constant [fixed] capital from both the numerator and the denominator of that profit-ratio, or rate-of-return-on-capital ratio, typically manifests, for the accounting period in which it occurs, as a fall in the overall magnitude of that rate of profit-ratio[for a fuller definition and discussion of the process of “technodepreciation”, and its consequences, see Part B. in , or ]

Marx and Engels also foresaw the [“lawful”] convergence of national capitalisms to state-capitalisms, as part of their “economic law of motion of modern society”, a ‘foreseeing’ for which ample evidence is given by the following passage from a key text by Engels, about which Engels noted, in its preface, that he had read it in full to Marx, prior to its publication, to insure that it represented the views of both of them:

“... since 1825, when the first general crisis broke out, the whole industrial and commercial world, the production and exchange of all civilized peoples ... have been dislocated practically once in every ten years.

"Trade comes to a standstill, the markets are glutted, the products lie in great masses, unsalable, ready money disappears, credit vanishes, the factories are idle, the working masses go short of the means of subsistence ... bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy ... the stagnation lasts for years ..."

"In these crises, the contradiction between social production and capitalist appropriation comes to a violent explosion."

"... the productive forces rebel against the mode of production, which they have outgrown."

"It is the pressure of the productive forces, in their mighty upgrowth, against their character as capital, increasingly compelling the recognition of their social character, which forces the capitalist class itself more and more to treat them as social productive forces, in so far as this is possible within the framework of capitalist relations."

"Both the period of industrial boom, with its unlimited credit inflation, and the crisis itself through the collapse of the great capitalist establishments, urge forward towards that form of the socialisation of huge masses of means of production which we find in various kinds of joint-stock companies."

"Many of these means of production are from the outset so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalist exploitation."

"At a certain stage of development even this form no longer suffices; the official representative of capitalist society, the state, is constrained to take over their management."

"This necessity of conversion into state property makes itself evident first in the big institutions for communication:  the postal service, telegraphs, and railways."

"If the crises revealed the incapacity of the bourgeoisie any longer to control the modern productive forces, the conversion of the great organisations for production and communication into joint-stock companies and state property shows that for this purpose the bourgeoisie can be dispensed with.

"All the social functions of the capitalists are now carried out by salaried employees.

"The capitalist has no longer any social activity save the pocketing of revenues, the clipping of [M.D.:  bond-]coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists fleece each other of their capital.

"Just as at first the capitalist mode of production displaced the workers, so now it displaces the capitalists, relegating them, just as it did the workers, to the superfluous population, even if in the first instance not to the industrial reserve army."

"But neither the conversion into joint-stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital."

"In the case of joint-stock companies this is obvious."

"And the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists."

"The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine; it is the state of the capitalists, the ideal collective body of all capitalists."  

"The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits."

"The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians.”

"The capitalist relationship is not abolishedaufheben» -- M.D.]; it is rather pushed to an extreme."

[Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring, International Publishers [New York:  1966], pp. 301-305, bold italic emphasis added by M.D.].

However much -- as stated explicitly above -- Marx and Engels predicted the “lawful” convergence of family-capitalism to joint-stock capitalism [i.e., to limited-liability corporation capitalism], and then of that ‘‘‘corporatist’’’ capitalism to state-capitalism, it is unlikely that Marx and Engels anticipated the full Orwellian horror of the anti-human viciousness of these national state-capitalisms that they predicted.  

It is unlikely that they fully foresaw the totalitarian, genocidal, and, ultimately, ‘‘‘humanocidal’’’ character of those national state-capitalisms, starting, most visibly, with ‘Hitlerian’ Germany [“national socialism”], and Stalinist Russia [“socialism in one country”].

It is unlikely, for example, that Marx consciously grasped the full import of the prophetic subtext of his own words when he wrote, in volume I of Capital, in a passage intended -- in our reading of it -- to characterize what we would term the ‘ascendance phase’ of the capitals-system, and the consequences of capital-relation-based production, but which applies, also, today, in the “First World” of capital, as well as in its “Second” and “Third’ worlds, in the ‘descendance phase’ of that capitals-system, to the consequences of capital-relation-based consumption, and to capitalist non-production, including to descendance-phase capitalism-induced chronic mass unemployment. 

The latter is embodied -- as a result of the ‘stealth genocide’ programs of air pollution, water pollution, the additives-pollution of the prevalent, processed ‘pseudo-foods’ and of  the pharmaceutical ‘pseudo-medicines’ [including of ‘pseudo-vaccines’] -- in the ‘obesified’, ‘diabeticized’, ‘asthmaticized’, ‘cancered’, ‘auto-immunified’, ‘alzheimerized’, and/or ‘autisticized’ majority populations of today’s “First World”, “Second World”, and “Third World” alike:

“What experience shows to the capitalist generally is a constant excess of population, i.e., an excess in relation to the momentary requirements of surplus-labor-absorbing capital, although this is made up of generations of human beings stunted, short-lived, swiftly replacing each other, plucked, so to say, before maturity."

"And, indeed, experience shows to the intelligent observer with what swiftness and grip the capitalist mode of production, dating, historically speaking, only from yesterday, has seized the vital power of the people by the very root -- shows how the degeneration of the industrial population is only retarded by the constant absorption of primitive and physically uncorrupted elements from the country -- show how even country laborers, in spite of fresh air and the principle of natural selection, that works so powerfully amongst them, and only permits the survival of the strongest, are already beginning to die off."

"Capital that has such good reasons for denying the sufferings of the legions of workers that surround it, is in practice moved as much and as little by the sight of the coming degradation and final depopulation of the human race, as by the probable fall of the earth into the sun.”

[Karl Marx, Capital, volume I, «The Productions-process of Capitals», International Publishers Co., Inc. [NY:  1967], p. 269, bold italic shadowed emphasis added by M.D.].

In a likewise “excess of population”-related passage, this time from volume III of Capital, Marx wrote as follows:

A development of the productive forces [M.D.:  E.g., a sufficiently comprehensive degree of industrial automation] which would diminish the absolute number of laborers, i.e., enable the entire nation to accomplish its total production in a shorter time-span would cause a revolution [and would thus also constitute an historical boundary, a productive force upper bound and limit, of the capitals-system; an end of the possibility of the capitals-system; of the capital social-relation-of-production as predominating social relation of social reproduction -- M.D.] because it would put the bulk of the population out of the running.

[Karl Marx, Capital, volume III, The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, International Publishers Co., Inc. [NY:  1967], p. 263, bold italic shadowed emphasis added by M.D.].

Of course, the capitalist ruling class would know this too, instinctively -- or even if only from the reports of “the best minds that money can buy”, to whom they would assign the task of studying Marx’s writings, and of communicating-back their ruling-class power-preservation-relevant findings. 

Hence, that ruling class would undertake precautions against such a revolution, once such a degree of productive force development -- e.g., “a sufficiently comprehensive degree of industrial automation”, or, e.g., sufficient advancement in the R&D of ruling-class, degenerate forms of ‘the emergence of the meta-human’ -- was in readiness by them. 

That is, they would prepare to “undertake” a large part of the global working class, by “population reduction”.

With regard to their prediction of the state-capitalist finality of private/competitive capitalism, and with regard to its anti-human ‘horrificity’, e.g., in the cases of the Hitler regime, the Stalin regime, and the Mao regime, a ‘horrificity’ which they apparently did not fully foresee, we can rightly plead, on Marx’s and on Engels’s behalf, as follows.

There is an inherent difficulty to envisioning, with full imaginative anticipation of their human-emotional and feeling significance, future states of human society, whose prediction is extracted, by dialectical-scientific reasoning, from the analysis of the seeds of those as-yet-unexperienced -- by the envisioner -- future states of human society, that are immanent in the present state of human society.

We can rightly make no such plea on our own 'behalfs', given what humanity has experienced in the years since the 1860s-1880s, e.g., since the zenith of the ascendance phase of the capitals-system; since the end of the ‘‘‘Hundred Years Peace’’’.

The mind-searing and heart-searing experiences, of, e.g., WWI, “The Great Depression”, WWII, the Hitler state-capitalist holocaust, the Stalin state-capitalist genocides, the Mao state-capitalist genocides, the depredations of the U.K.-created, and U.S.-created, state-capitalist military ‘servant-dictatorships’ throughout the “Third World”, the “Great Recession” and its state-capitalist, perpetrators’-corporate-welfare aftermath, etc., etc., ad nauseam, should have forewarned those alive today of what is to come, unless the majority of humanity intervenes to avert this process; to overthrow the self-degenerated capitalist ruling-class by means of political-economic-democratic global revolution.

The task of the previous entries of this blog has been to establish the Equitist prediction of our social present-to-future on the basis of the Marxian critique of the capitalist economics-ideology, and to determine both which parts of this prediction were also consciously derived and foreseen by Marx and Engels, and which parts were not.

The task of this present blog-entry is to present a sample of the proud and public proclamations and toutings of their ‘‘‘humanocidal’’’ planetary plan by the ruling capitalist plutocracy.

This plutocracy is so confident that they have reduced the non-plutocracy -- the non-ruling-class public -- to such a degree of cognitive and collective dysfunction, and of ideological befuddlement and passivity, that the ruling plutocracy risks little to nothing by such disclosures, even though they might reach the ears of the targeted public.

These quotes exude the confidence of the plutocracy that they have successfully robbed the vast majority of humanity of any cognitive capability to even comprehend the plutocracy’s plan, let alone to protest against it, let alone to revolt against it and to put an end to it.

Hypotheses on the Plutocracys Planned Planetary Population Plummeting.

Hypothesis Pl-1:  The Concubine of England, Prince Philip, Wants You Dead.
In August 1988, the Deutsche Press Agentur [DPA], among other sources reported the following statement by [welfare-]“Queen’ Elizabeth concubine, primary co-recipient of the state dole in the British Isles, and leader of the ‘‘‘anti-human-ist’’’ World Wildlife Fund, “Prince” Philip:

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” [ ].

Well, I can only say that perhaps we must make allowances for the distorted perspective that results from and unproductive life of perpetual, lifetime, chronic unemployment.  Such a life might lead its victim to view mass murder as a “contribution”.

In the transition from ‘serfism’ to ‘wage-ism’ -- from feudalism to capitalism -- along with certain hybrids, e.g., ‘aristocratized capitalists’, who bought their way to a landed title, and ‘capitalated aristocrats’, who managed to convert their fiefs into, e.g., factories, there were also some unreconstructed, “pure” ‘aristocratoids’ of the old “feodal [ig]nobility”, who managed, by hook and by crook, one might say, to make it into the new, capital-ownership-based ruling class.

They tend to show even greater degeneracy into misanthropic, mass-murderous sub-humanity than do the descendant-phase “pure” capitalist elements of today’s global plutocratic ruling class.

The global mass murder that they are planning -- and already carrying out, in stealth mode -- makes their erstwhile servant-dictator Hitler look almost like the proverbial “boy scout”.

Hypothesis Pl-2:  Environmentalist SaintJacques Cousteau, Now Dead himself, Wanted You Dead.
The November 1991 issue of the UNESCO Courier published and interview with Nature-lover [and, by his own words, majority-of-humanity-hater] Jacques Cousteau, which his statement in support of global mass murder, as follows:   

In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”  

[ ].

In a few cases, there are dupes of the Meta-Nazi ruling plutocracy who fall for the Meta-Nazi party People are Pollution ideology/neo-pseudo-religion, out of an illogically and misguidedly exclusive “love” for the rest of Nature, that gave birth to humanity -- a “love” for non-human Nature only.

However, in the case of the ‘Rocke-Nazi’ and ‘Rothe-Nazi’ plutocrats themselves, they don’t give a “hang” for Nature -- for non-human Nature and for human Nature alike. 

They “love” only their own convenience in exploiting and raping both. 

They put forward the People are Pollution ideology only to elicit acquiescence, from the world producing classes, in their progressive mass murder of more and more of producing-class humanity, starting with the stealth extermination of those with the most epidermal melanin, and ending with the extermination of those with the least, hoping thereby to avert any global solidarity among the non-ruling-class majority of humanity, that might mount a successful resistance against the Meta-Nazi’s global pogrom.

Hypothesis Pl-3:  The [Rockefeller-Owned] U. S. State Department Wants You Dead.
Thomas Ferguson, Latin American “case officer” of the U.S. State Department bureau originally known as the “Office of Population Affairs”, established in 1975 by Rockefeller arch-agent Henry “Dr. Strange Kiss” Kissinger, and later -- ‘‘‘cosmetically’’’ -- rechristened into “The U. S. State Department Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific [sic[k]!] Affairs” is quoted as follows: 

There is a single theme behind all our work -- we must reduce population levels. 

Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. 

Population is a political problem. 

Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it.

The Professionals aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons.  That sounds nice.  We look at resources and environmental constraints.  We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower it population -- or else we will have trouble.

So steps are taken.

El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. 

The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population.

Now they get a civil war because of it....

There will be dislocation and food shortages....

There were just too goddamned many people....

To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females....

The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death....”  [ ; ].

Evidently, such advocates -- and perpetrators -- of war crimes, and of other crimes against humanity, are the kinds of individuals with whom the Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, and their New York Council on Foreign Relations, like to “populate” the U. S. State Department, and other departments of the U. S. federal government, which the Rockefellers “own”, so as to lavish worker-taxpayers’ dollars on projects of mass murder within other nations, and, now, more than ever before, within the U. S. itself.

Hypothesis Pl-4:  The [secretly Rockefeller-funded] funders of The Georgia GuidestonesWant You Dead.  In June 1979, a pseudonymous agent [or agents] of an unknown group, under the name “R. C. Christian”, hired the Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build a massive granite structure, by some referred to as “the American Stonehenge”.  The first “guideline” of these “guidestones”, carved into the standing stones of this gargantuan structure in eight human languages presently widely spoken -- Arabic, Chinese, English, Hebrew, Hindi, Russian, Spanish, and Swahili -- reads, in English:  

 Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” 

[ ].

This -- “highly spiritual”, “environment friendly” -- “modest proposal”, given a present human population of approximately seven billion, merely calls for the mass murder of approximately 93% of the human race -- 6.5 billion human beings.

Makes rebellious Rockefeller servant-dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao look like -- what? -- rank amateurs?

We believe the monstrous Malthusian MIS-guidance carved into these stones at such great expense is just yet another little ideology-building project of The Rockefellerpest, designed, by those ultra-sociopaths, to appeal to the “spiritually” inclined.

Hypothesis Pl-5:  Stanford Professor-Hypocrite Paul Ehrlich Wants You Dead To Save The Planet”, and Yet He Has Never Offered to Sacrifice Himself.  Environmentalist “Saint” and genocidal maniac Dr. Paul Ehrlich equates you and your family to cancer cells:   

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.... We must shift our efforts from the treatment of symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.  The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” 

[ ].

The logical thing for such population reduction advocates to do -- if they weren’t rotten-to-the-core closet classists and racists, that is -- would be to “practice what they preach” and off themselves and their families first, not yours. 

But, curiously, it is always license to murder you and your family that they are after -- never to murder themselves and their own.  They also seem to have a marked preference, a sadistic proclivity -- they might even call it a “love” -- for “brutal and heartless decisions”.   

It appears that they would be miserable and despondent -- maybe even suicidal -- if they could find no excuses for such mass murderous brutality and heartlessness, which are so dear to their “hearts”.

Maybe they need a course in formal logic?

Hypothesis Pl-6:  Putin State-Capitalist Dictatorship Harbinger Mikhail Gorbachev Wants You Dead.  The following quote from that herald of the Rockefeller-arranged Russian branch of the Meta-Nazi’s “New Dark Age”, Mikhail Gorbachev, leaves no doubt as to who his employers are, and as to whose “party line” he adheres to:  

 ...the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis.  Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage”.  [ ].

No doubt it is Gorbachev’s “socialist” culture, and his “socialist-humanist” upbringing, that lead him to want to spare 5% of humanity, and to call for only a 90% population reduction, vis-à-vis a “tough-minded”, “entrepreneurial” capitalist like Ted Turner, who wants to murder all 95%.

Hypothesis Pl-7:  Rockefeller Mass Media Servant Ted Turner Wants You Dead.  CNN founder Ted Turner also lines up solidly with the Rockefeller/Eugenics “Party Line” [give or take 5%]:   

...A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.  [from an interview with the “pro-environment” Audubon magazine].  

 [ ; ].

Does ‘Teddy-baby’ make a strange bed-fellow -- in such partly-line adherence -- to Mikhail Gorbachev?  Not really.

Hypothesis Pl-8:  Rockefeller Eugenics Employee Wanted You Never Even Born.  Frederick Osborn, in the Galton Lecture for 1956, published in a 1956 issue of the Eugenics Review [vol. 48, Number 1], lamented the widespread post-WWII public revulsion regarding “the very word eugenics”, and proposed a new, stealth strategy, for implementing the Rockefeller-Eugenics Agenda: 

The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ...

We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?

I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature.

People are simply not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation.

We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it.

They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement ...

... they won’t accept the idea that they are in general second rate.

We must rely on other motivation ...

... it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection.

But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons [M.D.:  Does this sound like abandoning traditional eugenicist racism and ‘class-ism’, and replacing those “rationale” with those of environmentalism?  Does it sound like Global Warming, anybody? ].

Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree ... .

Of course, the advocates of the Eugenics mass murder global program/pogrom always postulate -- implicitly or explicitly -- in such writings, without offering any proof, that they are the people such that “the genetic base on which their character was formed is far superior to the “genetic bases” of [most of] the rest of humanity, so that that rest of humanity should therefore be made extinct, by these "superiors". 

No doubt, this postulate of their superiority is “self-evident”, by way of their sociopathic proclivity -- actually, theiromnipathic’ proclivity -- for global mass murder.  That is, their mass-murderousness proves their superior Darwinian "fitness" to any "tough-minded" person.

Actually, they represent the very nadir of human fitness, in the entire history of the human species to-date, and they represent the greatest-ever threat to the survival of the human species entire, whether or not they are counted as part of that species -- given their utter, and "un-becoming-human", self-degeneration.

Hypothesis Pl-9Rockefeller Intellectual Prostitute Dr. Eric Pianka Wants You in Agony, then Dead.  Rockefeller-owned “scientist”-prostitute and humanocidal maniac Dr. Eric R. Pianka openly repeated, and flagrantly touted, the Rockefeller ‘multi-[“eu’]genocidal’ party line, in his 2006 acceptance speech for the Texas Academy of “Science” Distinguished Texas “Scientist” Award.  Now, Texas is a state deeply and abjectly colonized by the Bush 'Mega-Crime' Family [the well-known, lower-plutocracy, Rockefeller-servant family, founded by Prescott Bush, arch traitor and financier of the Hitler Eugenics Regime for the Rockefellers, via the Brown Brothers Harriman investment bank, whose activities led to indictment under the WWII "Trading With The Enemy Act" after Rockefeller servant-dictator Hitler turned "Franken-Dictator -- turned on the Rockefellers -- initiating WWII ], AND IT SHOWS:

Genocidal Population Reduction Programs Embraced By Academia
One such individual who embraces the notion that humans are a virus that should be wiped out en masse for the good of mother earth is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin.

Dr Erik Pianka, the American biologist who advocated the mass genocide of 90% of the human race and was applauded by his peers.

During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the “need” to exterminate 90% of the worlds population through the airborne ebola virus.  The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.


Pianka’s speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period.  Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs.  The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide.   

“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”

Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of the avian flu virus and spoke glowingly of China’s enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

At the end of Piankas speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clambered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions.   

[ , emphases added by M.D.].


Of this incident, the Pianka Wikipedia entry states the following -- 
“Pianka's acceptance speech[13] for the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Award from the Texas Academy of Science[14] resulted in a controversy in the popular press when Forrest Mims, vice-chair of the Academy's section on environmental science, claimed in the Society for Amateur Scientists e-journal The Citizen Scientist that Pianka had “endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human populationthrough a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus.[15] Mims claimed that Pianka said the Earth would not survive unless its population was reduced by 90% suggesting that the planet would be better off if the human population were reduced and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) would be the most efficient means.[16] Mims' affiliate at the Discovery Institute, William Dembski, then informed the Department of Homeland Security that Pianka's speech may have been intended to foment bioterrorism.[17] This resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewing Pianka in Austin.[18]” 
[ , emphases added by M.D. ].


"Doctor Doom, Eric Pianka, Receives Standing Ovation from Texas Academy of Science

The following is excerpted from "Meeting Doctor Doom" by Forrest Mims, Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science:
... I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.

This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us.
Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind.
Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section.
Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter.
One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, "What good are you?"
Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, "We're no better than bacteria!"

Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth.

He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet.

He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too late.

Saving the Earth with Ebola
Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures.
Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

War and famine would not do, he explained.

Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.
Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow.
His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years.

However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."
With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.
After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.

"And the fossil fuels are running out," he said, "so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people."
So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third's of the world's population.

How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved?

Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work.

He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site.
When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.

Questions for Dr. Doom
Then came the question and answer session, in which Professor Pianka stated that other diseases are also efficient killers.
The audience laughed when he said, "You know, the bird flu's good, too." They laughed again when he proposed, with a discernable note of glee in his voice that, "We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth."
After noting that the audience did not represent the general population, a questioner asked, "What kind of reception have you received as you have presented these ideas to other audiences that are not representative of us?"
Pianka replied, "I speak to the converted!"
Pianka responded to more questions by condemning politicians in general and Al Gore by name, because they do not address the population problem and "...because they deceive the public in every way they can to stay in power."
He spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces their one-child policy. He said, "Smarter people have fewer kids." ...
With this, the questioning was over.

Immediately almost every scientist, professor and college student present stood to their feet and vigorously applauded the man who had enthusiastically endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population.

Some even cheered.

Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern to extend greetings and ask questions.

It was necessary to wait a while before I could get close enough to take some photographs (Fig. 1).

I was assigned to judge a paper in a grad student competition after the speech. On the way, three professors dismissed Pianka as a crank. While waiting to enter the competition room, a group of a dozen Lamar University students expressed outrage over the Pianka speech.

Yet five hours later, the distinguished leaders of the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
When the banquet hall filled with more than 400 people responded with enthusiastic applause, I walked out in protest.

Corresponding with Dr. Doom
Recently I exchanged a number of e-mails with Pianka. I pointed out to him that one might infer his death wish was really aimed at Africans, for Ebola is found only in Central Africa. He replied that Ebola does not discriminate, kills everyone and could spread to Europe and ... the Americas by a single infected airplane passenger.
In his last e-mail, Pianka wrote that I completely fail to understand his arguments. So I did a check and found verification of my interpretation of his remarks on his own web site. In a student evaluation of a 2004 course he taught, one of Professor Pianka's students wrote, "Though I agree that convervation [sic] biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola [sic] is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness." (Go here and scroll down to just before the Fall 2005 evaluation section near the end.)
Yet the majority of his student reviews were favorable, with one even saying, " I worship Dr. Pianka."
The 45-minute lecture before the Texas Academy of Science converted a university biology senior into a Pianka disciple, who then published a blog that seriously supports Pianka's mass death wish.

Dangerous Times
Let me now remove my reporter's hat for a moment and tell you what I think. We live in dangerous times. The national security of many countries is at risk. Science has become tainted by highly publicized cases of misconduct and fraud.

Must now we worry that a Pianka-worshipping former student might someday become a professional biologist or physician with access to the most deadly strains of viruses and bacteria? I believe that airborne Ebola is unlikely to threaten the world outside of Central Africa. But scientists have regenerated the 1918 Spanish flu virus that killed 50 million people.
There is concern that small pox might someday return. And what other terrible plagues are waiting out there in the natural world to cross the species barrier and to which scientists will one day have access?
Meanwhile, I still can't get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate for the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings. ..."
[ see also ].
 [Bold italics colored and underlined emphasis added by M.D.].