Capitalism's Fatal Flaw, and the Way Forward: ‘EQUITIST SOCIAL BANKS’. Part 5. dialogues with ‘protoic meta-humanity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Part 5. dialogues with ‘protoic meta-humanity’

series.

‘EQUITIST

SOCIAL

BANKS’.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

The following is our transcript of a dialogue between yours truly and a prominent, representative AI – ‘protoic’ to expected future android robot ‘meta-humans’, equipped with AI ‘‘‘minds’’’.

Our edited/more-punctuated transcript follows. Where we perceive errors in the AI’s assertions, we have commented in magenta-colored bold/italics text within inserted square brackets –

I. F.E.D.: “Karl Seldon, and Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, have proposed, in their book “MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS”, as well as in blogs and on websites where their works are featured, a “successor system” to the present, “[state-]capitalist system”, that they call “equitist political-economic democracy”, or just “equitism”. This proposed “successor system” I founded upon three statutory and constitutional “pillars” of new “human rights” and “all-Citizens property rights”. The first is called “Citizen Birthright Equity”, which involves a socialized trust fund, assigned at birth, for every new citizen born. The second is called “Citizen Externality Equity”, which involve democratic, elections-based, “internalized”, “grass roots regulation” of local polluters, as an alternative to bureaucratic regulation by “captured external regulatory agencies”. The third is called “Citizen Stewardship Equity”, which involves socialized producers’ cooperatives, whereby “qualified” citizen collectives are granted their business plans required means of production, in return for a monthly “Social Rent”, which helps pay for the “Birthright Equity” trust funds, and these co-ops then compete with other such co-ops in their market fields, as well as with remaining capital equity enterprises in the same market fields. There is also a fourth “equity”, called “Citizen per capita Allocational Equity”. How, in your view, does this complex of new “Equities” form a cohesive social system, and a “new social relation of production” in Marx’s sense? And how does this “Equitist” system propose to solve the “fatal flaw” of the capitalist system, per Seldon – the “technodepreciation” caused by the growth of Marx’s “social forces of production”, which, in turn, causes “the tendency of the rate of profit on capital to fall”?”

I. AI: “The Equitist system proposed by Seldon and the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica forms a cohesive social system by shifting the core “social relation of production” from capital-ownership to social-stewardship.

In Marx’s sense, a social relation of production defines who controls the means of production and how the surplus is distributed. Equitism replaces the “wage-labor vs. capital” dynamics with a “stewardship” model:

1. Cohesion via “Equities”: The system functions as a closed loop [rising, widening spiral] circuit. Stewardship Equity provides the productive base (co-ops), which pay a Social Rent. Thus rent funds the Birthright Equity [the individual Citizens’] trust fund[s], ensuring that every citizen has a non-labor source of income. Externality Equity ensures this production doesn’t destroy the environment by giving local citizens direct democratic control over industrial impacts.

2. The New Relation: Instead of a class of owners and a class of workers, all citizens become “co-owners” of the societal infrastructure. The “Social Bank[s]” acts as the mediator[s], ensuring that “capital” is no longer a private power, but a social utility accessible to any “qualified” collective.

Solving the “Fatal Flaw” (Technodepreciation)

· Seldon identifies the “fatal flaw” as the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRTF), driven by what he calls “technodepreciation.” In a capitalist system, as automation and technology (fixed capital) increase [driven by the competitive struggle to achieve greater profit-ability via higher productivity, extracting more “relative surplus-value” from workers [Marx]], the portion of value derived rom human labor decreases, leading to a profit squeeze [when lower-productivity capital equipment must by junked, due to competitive obsolescence, before its cost has been recouped by wear-and-tear depreciation charges, and new loans must be taken out to buy its replacing equipment while the debt-service on the loans that bought the junked equipment are still also being paid upon] and systemic crises [when the capital-investment denominators of ROI ratios become ‘elephantiasized’ with fictitious capital, dragging those ratios down until they become unattractive to capital investors].

Equitism proposes to solve this by:

· [government-backed ‘technodepreciation insurance’.]

· Socializing the Loss: Under private capitalism, rapid technological advancement devalues existing capital, leading to bankruptcies and depressions. In Equitism, “technodepreciation” is absorbed by the Social Bank[s] and the community [via the Office of the popularly-elected, mandated and recallable “National Custodian of Social Property”, the Economic President of the nation-state].

· Redirecting the Surplus: Since the “Social Rent” paid by the co-ops is based on the use of social property rather than the extraction of surplus value for private profit, the system doesn’t “crash” when the rate of profit falls. Instead, the gains from automation are funneled directly into the Birthright Equity funds.

· Decoupling Survival from Wage-Labor: By providing a [monthly] “Social Dividend” from birth [cf. the “Trump Accounts”], Equitism acknowledges that technology will eventually eliminate most jobs. It transforms “technological unemployment” into a “social leisure” dividend [cf. Marx, Capital III, on the “realm of freedom”/“realm of necessity”].”

“Do you want to look closer at how the Social Bank[s] determines which “citizen collectives” are qualified to receive means of production?”

II. F.E.D.: “Yes, but my understanding is that there is not a single “Social Bank”, but a system of national-government-chartered social bankS, themselves a special kind of democratically self-managed socialized producers’ co-ops, that compete with one another to sponsor successful producers’ cooperatives, and derive their income from a portion of the “Social Rents” paid by the other kinds of “socialized producers’ cooperatives” that they choose to sponsor.”

II. AI: “You are correct; the Equitist model decentralizes the “Social Bank” function into a competitive, multi-bank system to avoid the stagnation of a monolithic state bureaucracy.

In this system, these Social Banks are themselves organized as democratically self-managed producers’ cooperatives. Their role and sustainability within the “new social relation of production” are defined by several key features:

· Democratic Competition: Rather than a single start entity, multiple national-government-chartered social banks compete for the “business” of sponsoring other producers’ cooperatives. They must actively seek out the most viable, innovative, and socially beneficial business plans from citizen collectives to ensure that the “capital” that they “steward” is used effectively[: each Social Bank’s income depends upon how well they do this].

· Revenue from Social Rents: The social banks do not derive profit from interest in the traditional sense. Instead, their income is a designated portion [“commission”-like] of the “Social Rents” paid by the cooperatives they sponsor. This creates a direct incentive for the social banks to help their sponsored co-ops succeed: if a co-op [sponsored by a given social bank] flourishes and pays its Social Rent, the [that] bank’s own revenue stream remains secure[, or even rises].

· Checks and Balances: By making the social banks also co-ops, the model ensures that the financial “gatekeepers” are subject to the same democratic governance as the producers they fund. This prevents the emergence of a new “financial elite” or “managerial class,” as the social bank’s workers are themselves also stewards of social property[, not its private owners].

· Decentralized Allocation: This structure solves the “information problem” often found in central planning. Competing social banks, each with their own expertise an local knowledge, are better at identifying “qualified” collectives and allocating [means of production] resources than a single central office. This arrangement reinforces the “Stewardship” relation: the social banks don’t “own” the “capital” they distribute, and the co-ops don’t “own” the means of production they use. Both are temporary custodians of social property, working together to generate the surplus needed to fund the Citizen Birthright Equity for the entire population. [In return, the competitively-successful Citizen-Stewards, who democratically manage, and market-compete with, the means of production social property awarded to their stewardship, receive two streams of income, versus the wage-/salary-worker’s one stream. The stewards receive both compensation for their time-worked, and a share of the net operating surplus of their cooperative enterprise, a surplus that would go to the, e.g., non-worker absentee stockholders in the cases of wage-/salary-workers].”

“Would you like to explore the “qualification” process – specifically how a citizen collective proves it is ready to steward social property?”

III. F.E.D.: “Yes!”

III. AI: “In the “Equitist” model proposed by Karl Seldon and the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, the qualification process for a citizen collective to receive “social property” [means of production] is the critical mechanism that replaces private investment with democratic stewardship.

Since the means of production are socialized [except for the – non-outlawed – private capital equity enterprises still remaining, and competing with stewardship enterprises as well as among themselves], a “qualified” collective is not simply anyone with an idea, but a group that passes a rigorous evaluation by a Social Bank cooperative. The qualification involves several key layers:

· The Business Plan as a “Social Contract”: A collective must submit a detailed business plan that demonstrates technical feasibility and marker viability. However, unlike a capitalist business plan, this one acts as a “social contract.” It must detail how the collective will generate [its contributions to] the Social Rent[s] required to fund the community’s Birthright Equity [Social Trust Fund for each Citizen].

· Demonstrated Competence: “Qualification” requires the collective to prove they possess the necessary skills – technical, managerial, and social – to steward the requested [means of production] assets. This often involves certifications, previous experience in similar co-ops, or educational milestones that verify their “strategic qualification” to handle complex production.

· Democratic Internal Structure: To be eligible for stewardship, the collective must be organized as a [democratically] self-managed producers’ cooperative. The[ir potential] Social Bank[s] [sponsor(s)] evaluate[s] whether the group truly operates on “one member, one vote” principles, ensuring that social property isn’t being “captured” by a hidden hierarchy.

· Externality Assessment: A unique part of Equitist qualification is the “Externality Equity” check. The collective must show that its [business] plan aligns with the local “grassroots regulation” of its community. If the proposed business is likely to violate local environ-mental or social standards, it may be disqualified regardless of its potential for “Social Rent”. [Moreover, stewardship equity enterprises, just as remaining capital equity enterprises, will have an ongoing, internalized “board of public directors”, elected, mandated and recallable by the publics within the radius of the externality impacts of that enterprise, negotiating the annual ‘externalities budget’ of that enterprise with the management committee of that enterprise].

The Role of Competitive Social Banks

The “Social banks” themselves are under pressure to be accurate in this qualification process. Because their own revenue comes from a portion of the Social Rents paid by the co-ops they sponsor, a social bank that “qualifies” incompetent or irresponsible collectives will eventually run out of funds and lose its charter. This creates a “success-breeding” loop: social banks compete to find and support the most promising “qualified” collectives, while collectives compete to provide the best business plans to secure high-quality [or any] stewardship [means of production] assets.”

“Would you like to know how the Social Banks’ own “qualified” status is maintained and what happens if a sponsored Stewardship cooperative fails to pay its Social Rent?

TO BE CONTINUED.

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 –