Marx: “The Development of the Social Individual”; an Amendment.

 

Marx:

 

 “The Development

 

of the

 

Social Individual”;

 

 

an Amendment.

 

 

 

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

We wish to propose, as illustrated in the diagram posted above, an amendment to Marx’s “Productive forces and social relationships – the two different sides of the development of the social individual – appear to be, and are, for capital, only a means, to enable it to produce from its own cramped base.  But in fact they are the material conditions that will shatter this foundation…”

[David McLellan, The Grundrisse: Karl Marx, Harper & Row, NY, 1971, p. 148].

 

 

We hold that there are, not just two, but four fundamental dimensions of the historical development of the human-social individual that should be highlighted in any apt contemporary extension of Marxian theory, that is adequate to the growth of scientific knowledge since Marx’s time. 

 

Those four dimensions are –

 

1.  Yes, the history of the ‘social self-force of human-societal self-re-production’: “productive forces” or “technologies [of human life-expansion]” for short;

 

2. Yes, the ‘social relations of human-societal self-re-production’: “social relationships”, or [the history of human] “livelihood relations” for short;

 

3.  But also: the history of human social formations, and;

 

4.  The [psycho]history of human ideologies\knowledges.

 

These four “sides” of the development of the human-social individual, as depicted above, are shown as four historical-dialectical categorial progressions, radiating from the four ‘‘‘poles’’’ – two horizontal and two vertical – of the social-individual ‘“core”’ of this diagram.

 

The «arché» category, and the subsequent ‘self-hybrid’ ontological categories, to-date, of these four Domains of dialectical categorial progression, are, we hold –

 

A.  Social Formations:

1.  «arché» category: b, for hunter-gatherer bands;

2.  c, for hunter-gatherer camps;

3.  v, for agricultural villages;

4.  f, for multi-village chiefdoms;

5.  s, city-states;

6.  e, for multi-city-state, ancient empires;

7.  n, for nation-states.    

 

B.  Livelihood Relations 

[“social relations of production”]:

1.  «arché» category: A, for raw-Nature Appropriations [e.g., hunter-gatherer-scavenger foraging and cannibalism];

2.  G, for human-labor-modified Nature, i.e. Goods/Gifts;

3.  C, for bartered Commodities;

4.  M, for commodity-exchange-mediating Monies;

5.  K, for money-profits-targeting «Kapitals».

 

C.  Society-Expanding Technologies 

[“Productive Forces”]:

1.  «arché»: h, human communities’ cooperative labor as energy-resource [e.g., communal hunting and gathering];

2.  l, social animals as energy-resources 

[e.g., herding];

3.  b, de-socialized multi[-eukaryotic-]cellular bodies as energy-resources, e.g., human slavery 

[and ‘animal slavery’];

4.  e, eukaryotic cells as energy-resources 

[e.g., yeast cells for our “daily bread”, as well as for beers and wines];

5.  p, prokaryotic cells as energy-resources 

[e.g., bacteria-based cheeses – technologies for food preservation];

6.  m, molecules as energy-resources 

[e.g., natural gas];

7.  a, atoms as energy-resources [e.g., atomic power].    

 

D.  Ideologies\Knowledges:

1.  «arché» category: L for [initially only spoken] Languages;

2.  A, for [e.g., initially only cave-wall, petroglyph & figurine] Arts;

3.  M, for the story-units of Mythopoeias, or Mythologies;

4.  R, for doctrinaire, dogmatic Religions;

5.  P, for speculative Philosophies; 

philosophical schools;

6.  K, for observationally/experimentally corroborated

     Knowledges [e.g., sciences];

 

Of course, it must be admitted that, while each of these progressions, within each of these four dimensions of the human-social individual, and of the development thereof in human history, is relatively distinct and autonomous, and is worthwhile to take notice of, separately, all are, as well, ultimately driven by, and predicated upon, just one of them – on the growth of “the social forces of production” [Marx].

 

This is so, in a subtlest form, even for the [psycho-] historical development of ideologies\knowledges.

 

And, also of course, each of these four distinct ontological-dialectical progressions interacts with each of the others, in exceedingly complex ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!