Is there no alternative to our plight — to the horrific destiny of humanocidal totalitarian degeneration described in GS1 (Global Strategic Hypothesis: Towards A Strategy For Humanity) and GS2 (The Political Economic Law Of Motion of Modern, Capital-based Society — The 'Socio-Taxis' Toward Totalitarianism)?
We believe that there is an alternative.
We have endeavored to introduce you to that alternative by way of the text below.
Progressive Negation of Bourgeois Democracy, and of Bourgeois Civil Liberty, is Dialectical Negation. 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 ascendant 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.
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 its slide into hybrid, private-/state-capitalist totalitarianism, is set to annihilate all of those gains.
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.
Progressive Negation of Capital-Value, and of "The Exchange-Value" in General, is Dialectical Negation. 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" was not "abolished". On the contrary, it was «aufheben»-conserved and -transformed in and by the 'money-praxis'. It was mediated and subsumed by and as the pre-capitalist money-catalyzed "circulation-praxis".
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" — 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"; of "use"; of "utility — as an '''indirect use''', or 'exchange-use' of goods [i.e., as a new 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''' of '''direct consumption use''' of the same goods.
But this new «species» of '''use-value''' grew so 'socially-large', relative to the old «species» of 'goods-value'/'gifts-value', that it came to inaugurate a new «genos» in its own right, the «genos» of [initially commodity-barter-based] '''exchange-value'''.
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, the "money-relation" was not "abolished", nor even was money's predecessor form of value, and social relation of production — the "commodity-relation" — "abolished". On the contrary, the 'money-praxis' and the 'commodity-praxis' were both «aufheben»-conserved and -transformed in and by the 'capital-praxis'. Both were subsumed by the capital-catalyzed '''capital-circulation/-reproduction-praxis and -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-from continued to have use-value when it was superseded, as the 'meristemal' social relation of production, by the "capital-relation" — the 'money-relation' as subordinated to and as '''subsumed by''', or '''appropriated by''', that successor social relation of production, called "capital".
The 'money-relation' first emerged as a new value-«species» of 'commodity-value'; of 'barter-value' — as the protracted historical series '''money-commodities''', a role tending 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''' 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 as inversion of that money-mediated 'circulation-praxis', of the trading-sequence, 'alienation-sequence', or 'circulation-sequence' of ownership: '''commodity → money → different commodity''', by the reversed exchange-sequence, 'alienation-sequence', or 'circulation-sequence': "money → commodity → more money", where the aim of the 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 '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, sub-«species» of capital that initially had 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 expanse, did capital began to re-shape human production.
Indeed, only with the advent of the 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, thus, with the emergence of "industrial capitalism" — did the capital-relation come to "real-ly" dominate and subsume — and to comprehensively re-shape — the human production-process; the human labor-process.
That is, this new «species» of '''exchange-value''' grew so 'socially-large', relative to the old «species» of 'money-commodity exchange-value', and of the 'commodity-barter exchange-value' before it, that this new "capital" «species» 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 '''profit-making-money'''.
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, only to outgrow it, and thus to supersede it, becoming a new «genos» in its own right..
The 'capital-praxis', the "capital-relation" as dominant 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 that 'im-practice-ability' manifests in the form of its supercession, 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 useless, never avoidable as an '''instar''' of human-species progression, never without merit as a transient, transitory, and transitional means of expanded human social reproduction.
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-managed enterprises will conserve that economic "check-and-balance", protecting producer-consumers and their families from monopoly abuses — either by state-managed enterprises such as have already, in human history, demonstrated their propensity for abuse — or by others among the associated producers.
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.
The Transition from Capitalism to 'Democratic Communism' is a Dialectical, that is, an «Aufheben», Transition. '''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 — '''capital-equity''', 'internality-equity', or "capital equity stock" / "stockholder democracy" — and of the capitalist market, but by the dialectical, or self-«aufheben»-negation, i.e., by the conservation/elevation/transformation, of that initial, «arche' species» of "equity", that is, via '''further speciation''' of 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 «arche' 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 —
— as defined in the sequel.
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 — anonymous] Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself and [other parts of — anonymous] Nature. He opposes himself to [other parts of — anonymous] 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 — anonymous] 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) — anonymous] and changing it, he at the same time [self-reflexively, self-refluxively — anonymous] 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;Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (vol. I), '''The Productions-Process of/by Capitals'''; International Publishers Co., Inc. (NY: 1967); pages 177-178; bold, italics, colored, and underlined emphasis added by anonymous].
I 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 those of 'democratic-communist' society — 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 '''historically-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 be could acceptably left 'in 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 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 decadent phase of the global «Kapitals»-system, a decadent 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, 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 in the transition to a "post-prehistoric", higher form of human 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 and Stalinoid 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 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. That ritual did not conjure 'democratic communism'. Instead, it 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. That, in turn, gave us Stalin. That, in turn, gave us Hitler.
In the context of this subject-matter, it is profoundly informative to see what Marx actually had to say, in the very core of his written works, about the immanent emergence — from out of the heart of the capital-relation itself — of the core social relation of production of 'democratic communist' society, 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 [I call this transitional form 'workers' capital[ism]' — anonymous].
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. ...
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.
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 contradiction — crises — 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 anonymous]
In a letter to Engels [Marx to Engels; April 2, 1858; in MEW 29; page 312; reproduced in Rubel on Marx: Five 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.
- Capital en général [in Fr.] (This is the material of the first brochure).
- Competition or the reciprocal action of the many capitals.
- Credit, where capital appears as the general element in opposition to the many capitals.
- Share capital as the most perfect form (assuming the character of communism), together with all its contradictions." [bold, italic, colored, and underlined emphasis added by anonymous]
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''', and to "communism"?
The incipient political democracy and civil liberty that early, competitive, ascendant-phase capitalism asserted, initially against its feudal and Absolute-Monarchical rivals, can only be restored in a higher form, and preserved from otherwise total destruction by the late, decadent-phase form of that same capitalism, by means of advancing that initially merely political democracy to a politically-and-economically democratized, actualized political-economy.
We hold that the way to achieve this begins with an extension and generalization of "stockholder democracy" into '''stakeholder democracy''', in a "publics" sense; that is, by way of a constitutional institutionalization of Equitarian, externality-equities-based economic democracy; a public and popular economic democracy that was absent as such throughout the capital epoch, seeded only in that democracy among capitalists — among the holders/owners of 'internality-equity' — immanent in the principles and practices [however often honored in the breach] of joint-stock company "stockholder democracy".
We propose the following 'heuristic derivation' of a relatively detailed, concretized concept of the next '''social relation of [human-society self-re-]production''', successor to the capital-relation, as the next subsuming 'socio-negentropic' organizing principle of human society. We apply an 'heuristic dialectical algebra' intuitively below; there is thus no need to detail here the algorithmic mechanics of the 'dialectical arithmetic' undergirding the operations of that dialectical algebra.
This next relation is, we hold, 'the social relation of generalized equity', with 'externality-equity' as «arché» of these later «species» of equity, seeding a succeeding social [re-]formation which we term 'Equitism', or 'Equitarian Society'.
'Solving for' this successor human-social system, generically denoted by the term 'Meta-Capitalism', in the following model of the partial/excerpt historical dialectic of capitalism, we write, with △ signifying a qualitative, 'socio-ontological' change-increment [not the purely quantitative change-increment signified by △ alone, without the underscore]; with '' denoting the relation of non-quantitative, or qualitative, inequality; with the '2' in '' denoting the 'second level' of the Encyclopedia Dialectica 'universal taxonomy'; with the 'h' in '', denoting the 'humanity' ontological category of the 'first level' of that 'universal taxonomy'; with '' denoting qualitative, ontological, or "non-amalgamative" / "heterogeneous" / '''historical''' addition, with '' denoting qualitative, ontological multiplication, with '' denoting the operation of 'dialectical self-negation', i.e., of 'self-«aufheben» negation', and with '→' denoting the phrases 'becomes', or 'develops itself into', or 'turns into', or 'goes to':
Capitalism → Capitalism = CapitalismCapitalism = Capitalism 'of' Capitalism = Capitalism 'confronts' itself = Capitalism2 = Capitalism △Capitalism = Capitalism Meta-Capitalism = Capitalism Equitism,
or, in shorthand form, with K denoting the human social System of «Kapitals» — i.e., '''Capitalism''' — we write:
K → K = K K = K of K = K self-confronts = K K = K2 = K △K = K E K .
We can presently discern the following 'socio-ontological' «species» of social relations [of production] as inhering within the «genos» of 'generalized Equity', and as expected to be manifested by, and ingredient in, the emergence of E from K —
We will address herein, at greater length, some of what we have been able to derive regarding the determinations of two of the new «species» of 'generalized equity', namely, the 'Citizen Birthright Equity' «species», the 'Citizen Allocational Equity' «species», and the 'Citizen Externality Equity' «species», immediately below.
The principle of the social generalization, or universalization, of equity-holding, to all social citizens, and of an 'onto-dynamasis' beyond the kinds of such equity presently in existence, to birth new kinds, e.g., 'externality equities' — the heart and «arché» of the E 'socio-onto' — does not end with the public-democratic 'property-ization' of 'externality equities'.
It extends as well to the social generalization of the proprietorship of, initially, 'internality equities' by all citizens, by means of a policy of 'Citizen Birthright Equity Endowment' in an amended, constitutionalized Bill of Social Rights & Responsibilities.
This new «species» of equity also flows from principles of 'social risk management', of 'economic-system-risk' management and of 'social self-investment'.
It means that every child born into 'Equitarian Society', is granted, «ipso jure», at birth, by virtue of fundamental constitutional right, a tax-funded equal sum of capital equity stock, comprised of small portions of all publicly-issued stocks, bonds, and other capital assets meeting legislated standards, and of extant social property income streams as well, designed as an integrated social/individual risk management trust-fund, and a unified, 'omni-portable', globally-portable "social safety net", for every new-born citizen.
This new constitutional right, in this sense, makes every baby born into human society a '''trust-fund baby'''.
It means per capita citizen net assets in place of today's plutocracy-mandated, malignantly growing per capita citizen liabilities; the share of each citizen in plutocracy-incurred public debt [a way by which the plutocratic minority finances its destructive imperial enterprises and their required '''permanent war economy''' via taxes, as legislated forced consumptions, foisted upon the non-super-rich majority].
If not, in the beginning, birthing every baby with a golden or even a silver spoon in her or his mouth, every baby would be born with at least a stainless steel "spoon in its mouth".
These unified provisions would address the management of the risk of the "contained" but also "retained" elements of capital-profit-based economics, plus of the new, Equitarian system, as well as of the universal risks to which human social life is heir.
Society's collective portion of equal initial social investment in each individual citizen, by social right of birth [as distinct from the presently persisting unequal family investment in / inheritance of each child, resulting from, e.g., the unequal fruits of achievements by that child's ancestors], and the partially age-based and tests-of-knowledge-based, constitutionally- and legislatively-restricted allocation of each child's birth-right equity trust-fund, would be legislatively designed to meet the expected, standard costs of foreseeable life-history events, including —
Costs of social failures by the individual — e.g., of welfare livelihood-support in the cases of extended, perhaps non-economic-downturn-induced unemployment, or of incarceration costs in cases of criminal conviction — would be borne out of this birthright equity fund, up to its near-exhaustion, thus also forming a further dis-incentive to such failures. [Economic downturns may continue to occur, irregularly, during the period of the '''formal domination''', or '''formal subsumption''', of the capital social-relation-of production by the rest of the emergent social-relation-of production of 'generalized equity', although any immanent social processes described in terms of a '''social law''' of such downturns is expected to be increasingly 'socio-ontologically' distinct from the immanent social process which drives the iterated irruption of escalating periods of contracted social reproduction within the [sub-]epoch of the '''real domination''' of, and of the more or less exclusive social rule of, the "capital-relation"].
This unification, with each citizen as cost-concerned customer, given the voucher-like personal stake of each citizen in the conservation, and expansion, of the principal of each's birthright-equity social trust-fund, would 're-marketize' social welfare provision, and 're-competitivize' the pricing of medical and other social welfare services, and, thus, the exercise of cost-efficiency and cost-discipline in their production, de-incenting the "take it for granted" moral hazard of "free-of-charge", state-bureaucracy-produced, or state-bureaucracy-subsidized, '''social welfare''' provisions.
The policy of 'Citizen Birthright Equity Endowment' raises questions of the disposition of such endowments in the event of termination of pregnancy, averting the birth of a new citizen, by right of the mother.
Parents must not be allowed to '''profit''' monetarily from their children's social trust-funds, though, even so, the financial worries and burdens of parenthood would be significantly mitigated by this policy, even countervailing against the extreme amplification of the "demographic transition" presently evident, in part, in advanced capitalist nations' growing tendency toward negative rates of human population growth.
The 'Citizen Birthright Equity' policy would not constitute a direct financial incentive to never abort a fetus.
However, the high social valuation of each and every life implicit in this policy suggests a certain resolution of the prevailing "right-of-choice" versus "right-of-life" social conundrum, a conundrum which presently forms an apparent antinomy, but which we see, rather, as yet another dialectical self-antithesis or 'self-duality' within the prevailing social concept of right.
This 'intra-duality' has been opportunistically exploited, manipulated, and amplified — in anti-dialectical, rigid, frozen, "either-vs.-or" fashion — by the 'Meta-Nazi' plutocracy's 'ideological engineering' operations, so as to foster and reinforce the protracted social strife of both sides of a diametrically opposed, antagonistic, "irreconcilable" social antithesis, as yet one further tool for the 'Meta-Nazis' ideology-based divide-and-conquer subjugation of the majority — the 'producers-class' — public.
The apparent antinomy between the community's right and duty to safeguard the lives of all of its members, and thus to enforce severe sanctions against homicidal behavior, on the one hand, and of citizens' rights to the free disposition of their individual bodies with minimal governmental or communitarian encroachment, on the other hand, can be resolved in a higher, socially-mediated, complex unity which preserves both dimensions of right, including some aspects of their sometimes conflictual mutual relationship.
Humane society can never permit the decision to end a human life, even an embryonic life, to be a casual decision.
If a healthy prospective mother, with sciebce-based expectancy of a birth-outcome unthreatening to her health, chose to terminate her pregnancy, she would, per this expectation of the '''values''' of a 'democratic communist' society, be incentivized, by democratically-legislated rewards and/or penalties, to register her intention to do so in the appropriate portal, set aside for this purpose, of the global 'Omni-Com' — of the social Omnibus Communications social-property utility: of the globally-socialized heir to today's "internet".
Other legally-qualified prospective parents, perhaps biologically unable to birth children of their own, would have the constitutional right, by assuming all of the medical and other cost-burdens of the pregnancy and of the delivery, to adopt the child[ren] resulting from the registered pregnancy, as long as the medical court — a jury of publicly-elected physician-justices — certified the mother as physiologically and psychologically safe to go to term within the 'legislatedly acceptable' outcome probabilities, hopefully quite stringent with regard to the safety of the mother.
If the medical court found otherwise, the planned abortion would be free to proceed.
If, globally, no qualified prospective adopters were willing to "speak up for" the life of the child in this substantive way, this silence would constitute consent to the abortion — a relinquishment, by the human community extant, of its right to preserve the potential extrauterine life of the fetus in question.
The mother would, in such cases — hopefully rare — be free to proceed with the abortion.
In such cases, no 'Citizen Birthright Equity Endowment' would accrue to support the thus-prevented extrauterine life of the embryonic child.
Truly equitable distribution of, e.g., the public assets ceded, from the stock of global social property, in stewardship to local and regional producers' associations, may involve, especially initially, from the point of view of the internationally base-elected A.I.D.P. [«Association Internationale des Directeurs Publiques»], compensatory and reparative elements, until the injustices of past capitalist-imperialist social auto-cannibalization of the capital-hinterland and former "Second World" and "Third World" regions of the globe has been adequately redressed.
Such allocative equity, in any case, involves the solution of presently unsolved — and hardly even posed — problems of 'social-negentropy accounting' in the context of a 'meta-market' social system, in which mere monetary-valuations provide an even more inadequate metric of 'social-reproductive use-value' than they do now, still within the integument of the "capital-relation".
The nature of 'Citizen Allocational Equity' is thus that of an historical equity-principle, which targets an "ideal" of equal «per capita» regional allocation of socially-owned social negentropy, but which recognizes that such an ideal standard becomes relevant only once an "equipotential" among all regions of the globe has been achieved with regard to life-opportunities.
There will be a role for the constitutionally and juridically regulated and monitored 'Declarations of Peace and Prosperity' — replacing, and hopefully preempting and obviating the whole history of '''Declarations of War''', up to today — adopted by one global region, with respect to another, as part of the process of achieving the necessary compensatory and reparative allocations that constitute '''the correction of the past''' in terms of wealth- and resource-sharing. Such 'Declarations', and, even more so, their implementation, involves subtle applications of a mastery of human-social science — of the science of the catalysis of accelerated human-social self-development — that are all but beyond the ken of our current, capital-compromised and capital-corrupted civilization. These declarations might involve something of what Marx envisioned, with respect to Russia, and with respect to the Russian Mir, '''given a successful proletarian revolution in the West''', in his Preface to the Russian edition of Capital (volume I), and in his draft letters to Vera Zasulich.
The social principle, and social policy, of 'Externality Equity' is both a collective-property, public-property, social-property instantiation of the so-called "Coase Theorem", and an ultimate fruition of the '''equity''' or '''equitable jurisprudence''' tradition of Anglo-American law, in contradistinction to the common law and statutory law traditions.
"Externalities" are "market failures" of the markets of Capitalism, as recognized, and as named as such, by capitalist economists, constituting a major aspect of the immanent critique of capitalism officially admitted — however much these immanent failures of 'capital-ism' may be officially downplayed — by capitalist economics.
"Externalities" comprise the "external costs", and, sometimes, the "external benefits", that are imposed, by the operations of capitalist enterprises upon those '''publics''' which are neither the owners, the employees, the customers, nor the suppliers of those enterprises, which impose upon those '''publics''' without any intrinsic provision for consent by, or compensation to, said '''publics'''.
The life-threatening toxic pollution of the air, water, and soil of residential communities by proximate industrial plants forms a classic spectrum of examples of such "external cost" imposition.
The "Coase Theorem" is the name given to the proposition, asserted by Nobel-laureate capitalist economist Ronald Coase, to the effect that externalities do not give rise to '''diseconomies''', '''distribution sub-optima''', or '''resource mis-allocations''', provided that well-defined and enforceable property rights exist, such as to create a market incentive for the externality-producer to '''internalize''' the cost of the externality.
The "equity" or "equitable jurisprudence" tradition of Anglo-American law originally emerged as a system of law, parallel and dual to the common law/statutory system of law, in the English chancery, and which came to comprise a settled and formal body of substantive and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statutory law. "Equity" in this context connotes "justice according to fairness, esp. as distinguished from mechanical application of rules".
The equity principle at work in the 'externality equities' '''second «species»''' of 'generalized equity', is the principle that publics, which suffer the '''external costs''' imposed upon them without consent or compensation by private-capital enterprises, thereby, in effect, '''purchase''' shares of a new, to-be constitutionally established and mandated class of equities – a public, collective form of equity-property – whose disposition must therefore be by means of collective, democratic decision, arrived at by vote of the publics, i.e., of the 'externality-equity' owners, '''shareholders''', or '''stakeholders'''.
'Externality Equity' implies an immanent-/self-expansion of joint-stock-company stockholder democracy principles, inherent in the capital-relation, to encompass the constitutional, legislative, and regulatory 'institution-ization' of generalized, comprehensive '''stakeholder democracy'''.
'Equitism' begins with constitutional recognition of a new 'socio-ontological category' of equities: 'externality equities'.
'Externality Equity' generalizes core, capital-equity logic to encompass economic democracy, starting with public, democratic econo-political governance of the core of capitalism's '''market failures''' – its production and accumulation of an ever-mounting burden of the '''externalities''' that it foists upon its publics, publics who may be "third parties" – neither customers of, nor employees of, nor owners of, nor suppliers of the capital-entity producing the "externalities" in question.
We expect to find — given a protracted and appropriate, including «samizdat», preparation of the majority social conscience — the emergence of a majoritarian, popular movement for the 'Equitarian Reform' and 'economic-democratic extension' of the "representative-democratic", '''political-democratic''' constitutions of the nations of the capital-system's global market core.
We expect this movement to develop in response to the accelerating '''political-economic immiseration''' and degradation of those societies in the accelerating on-rush, by their ruling classes, into the multi-genocidal, state-capitalist totalitarian destiny engendered by the unresisted decadent-phase depredations of the capitals-system.
The envisioned 'Equitarian Reforms' are a 'constitutionalization' and 'juridicalization', into social law, of an immanent critique, or self-critique, of the "capital-relation" — of capital – a critique both theoretical and practical.
The institutional infrastructure of the 'Externality Equity' «species» of 'generalized equity' is a scaled self-similarity structure, a 'synchronic meta-fractal', of economic governance bodies, based in publicly-elected, base-elected public directors, serving in the new, constitutionally-mandated, '''second houses''' of local, newly bi-cameral boards of directors: the public stakeholders' «camera», or 'externality-equities' «camera», of that newly bi-cameral governance.
Per this programme, these "second house", 'public boards of directors', or 'boards of popularly-elected, public directors', are to be constitutionally required in all local enterprises with sufficient externalities impact, in accordance with a constitutionally-stipulated externalities-impact metric, and a threshold stipulated in terms of that metric.
These new, public boards, would co-manage, in continuous negotiation with the traditional, 'internality-equities' board, and/or its local "management committee", or "executive committee" delegates, the annual 'externalities budgets'/operating plans of each such enterprise, with constitutionally and legislatively ceded co-authority to do so, 'adjudicate-able' via the judiciary branch of social governance in cases of deadlock.
Arising therefrom — possibly, at first, as extra-constitutional "NGOs", prior to their full constitutional institutionalization, as extra-constitutional "NGOs" — we anticipate the accelerating emergence of local/municipal, state/provincial, regional, national, continental, and, eventually, global, associations of public directors.
All levels of these associations of public directors must be constitutionally-required to be base-elected, so that it is not the members of a more local-scale association that elect the members of the next-less-local-scale association.
It must be the combined base of all of the more local associations addressed by a given next-scale association that elect the members of that next-scale association.
The function of these associations is to coordinate externalities social management policy at 'meta-enterprise' levels.
We expect that these would increasingly constitute – at first, «de facto», and, later, by sovereign, popular institution and constitutional amendment, «de jure» — a fourth, 'econo-political', branch of government, in sustained 'quadruple-power' with «aufheben»-conserved/-transformed executive, legislative, and judicial branches, with checks-and-balances between every pair of these four branches.
A key effect of the actions of these associations would be a human-geographical 'de-abstractification' / 're-determination /-containment' of abstract capital; an «aufheben»-conserving /-negating '''real subsumption''' of the capital-equity or 'internality-equity' relation, its markets, and its '''market failures''', within the democratized relations of production of the generalized-equity-relation, including all of the new socio-ontological classes of 'non-internality-equity' emergent from their 'externality-equity' «arché».
An 'essence-ial' operation of the «Kapitals»-system, that it applies externally, to its surrounding pre-capitalist hinterland [as it converts that hinterland into new socio-geographical increments to itself, to its own geographical domain], as it does also internally, to its own already-converted internal terrain, is one of expropriation — expropriation of small-holder peasant producers on the land and of self-employed urban artisans, etc., to form/expand the wage-labour class; expropriation of smaller capitals by larger, expropriation of surplus-labor and of surplus-value, etc.
«Kapital» is also, 'essence-ially', an operation of bursting-asunder all barriers to the quanto-qualitative advance of social productivity [of the "social productive forces", cf. Marx].
As the «Kapital»-conversion of the pre-capital hinterland nears completion, as the «Kapitals»-system comes to surround the last remnants of the social-systemic '''other''' that once surrounded it, we move toward that moment in the history of the «Kapitals»-system in which that system will 'surround' and confront only itself worldwide.
That approaching [extended] historical moment means that the operations which that system hitherto applied to the predecessor social formations that 'environmented' it in the past – namely, the operations of expropriation and of social-barrier-dissolution — will be applied to the «Kapitals»-system itself, by the «Kapitals»-system itself, as its own only remaining human-social environment, in its final confrontation: in its confrontation with itself.
With regard to the expropriation operator, this would mean an expropriation of the expropriation [operation] itself, which operation is «Kapital»:
"What does the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e., its historical genesis, resolve itself into?
In so far as it is not immediate transformation of slaves and serfs into wage-labourers, and therefore a mere change of form, it only means the expropriation of the immediate producers, i.e., the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner. …
as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet...the further expropriation of private proprietors takes a new form.
That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralisation of capital.
One capitalist always kills many.
Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-increasing scale, the cooperative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialised labour ['the objective socialization of the means of production' – anonymous], the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and, with this, the international character of the capitalist régime. ...
The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it.
Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument.
This integument is burst asunder.
The knell of capitalist private property sounds.
The expropriators are expropriated."
— Karl Marx; Capital (vol. I), Chapter XXXII, "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation"; International Publishers (NY: 1967); pages 761-764; bold, italic, colored, and underlined emphasis added by anonymous]
Marx foresaw, in the Grundrisse, that, in this 'self-environment' or 'self-surroundment' and 'self-envelopment' of the «Kapitals»-system, it would find in its own nature a barrier to the further development of the social '''self-forces''' of self-expanding societal self-[re-]production, and act upon itself accordingly, unstoppably, whatever to the contrary its partisans and beneficiaries might wish:
"... capital has pushed beyond national boundaries and prejudices, beyond the deification of nature and the inherited, self-sufficient satisfaction of existing needs confined within well-defined bounds, and the reproduction of the traditional way of life.
It is destructive of all this, and permanently revolutionary, tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversity of production and the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces.
But because capital sets up any such boundary as a limitation and is thus ideally over and beyond it, it does not in any way follow that it has really surmounted it, and since any such limitation contradicts its vocation, capitalist production moves in contradictions, which are constantly overcome, only to be, again, constantly re-established [and, on an ever-larger 'meta-fractal' scale – anonymous].
Still more so.
The universality towards which it is perpetually driving finds limitations in its own nature, which, at a certain stage of its development will make it appear as itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, leading thus to its own self-destruction."
— David McLellan; The Grundrisse, Karl Marx; Harper & Row (NY: 1971); pages 94-95
Vastly more needs to be said about the historical dynamics and 'meta-dynamics' of the «Kapitals»-system, and about the mechanisms and 'organisms' of its 'meta-finite self-conversion / self-bifurcation self-singularity', as especially about the immanent tendency of accumulating capital-value to de-value itself, and of the rate of capital value-accumulation to decelerate itself, both as expressions of the growth of the society-re-productive forces within capital.
However, the above-excerpted intimations must suffice for the present purpose.
The Fight for Human Liberty is Now a Life-and-Death Struggle Against Decadent Capitalism – Against the Unchecked Power of the Totalitarian Capitalist Plutocracy of the Advanced Capitalist Core of the World-Market System. The «Kapitals»-systems of national and global political economy have engendered liberal political constitutions, with internal checks and balances limiting the abuse of political power, which have, as a result, proven relatively so successful at growing social productivity / '''the social forces of production''', that their economic and social success is now rapidly turning into its opposite — catastrophic economic, political, social failure.
Their economies have, at length, outgrown the power of their political constitutions, and of their exclusively political checks and balances, to avert the accumulation of unchecked power and the species-lethal abuse of that unchecked power, in the formation of a pro-totalitarian capitalist plutocracy.
Their market competition, which provides economic checks and balances limiting abuses in the pricing and quality of goods, services, and in customer service quality in general, becomes, and must become, successful competition.
Successful competition becomes, and must become, the [partial] negation of competition, namely, monopoly [or oligopolistic, etc., near-monopoly].
Thus, competition leads to and becomes its opposite, monopoly and oligopoly.
The process of the competition of capitals thus leads to the formation of agglomerations of capital so gargantuan that they can take over the mass media of public communication, and buy-out the political system — legislative, executive, and judicial; lock, stock, and barrel.
Thereby, the political checks and balances among those branches of the public, political government are obviated and subverted.
The houses of legislature become houses of prostitution.
The executive and judicial branches of government are, over time, likewise bought-out and prostituted.
Increasingly, only those candidates for public, political, elected office who sell themselves to the plutocracy can acquire the vast funding necessary to buy access to the plutocracy-dominated mass media sufficient to achieve electoral victory.
Thus, successful advanced capitalist democracies are characterized by a seemingly irresistible tendency to plutocratic totalitarian degeneration.
The horrific dictatorships of Hitler and Stalin, precisely because they arose in nations whose capitalist development was in some ways retarded, have provided a prevenient, disfigured prefigurement of the hellish future of demise that humanity faces in the further, advanced-decadence development of this plutocratic totalitarian self-degeneration of capitalism.
Only the addition of economic checks and balances can overcome this economic subversion of once-partially-effective but exclusively political checks and balances.
Only the emergence of political-economic democracy, of a democratically 'politicized' political economy, can check this tendency to plutocratic totalitarian political degeneration, a degeneration which has arisen from the economy; from the 'economic side' of the political-economy; from the economy's production of a prostitute-government, prostituted most-abjectly to the economic plutocracy.
The share-principle, the capital-equity-principle, the one-share-unit-of-capital-owned = one-vote-for-the-election-of-directors-to-the-board-of-directors governance principle of stockholder democracy immanent within the 'socio-ontological category' of capital, is a principle of economic-democratic enfranchisement for the owners of capital, but also a principle of total economic dis-enfranchisement for the non-owners of capital.
The principle of 'Equitism' outers the latent, immanent dual of that capital-principle, a principle of enfranchisement also for the non-owners of capital.
It does so in the form of the moral recognition and juridical formation, initially, of a new class of property-equities, that of 'externality-equities', in part via the "equity" tradition of 'precedentary', case-law jurisprudence, as well as from the generalized-equity-enabling 'Equitarian' constitutional amendments — amendments to be proposed in detail under separate cover.
Thus, we hold, the 'onto' of Capital will 'self-bifurcate' into the ''-denoted antagonistic non-amalgamative sum —
Capital-Equity The Rest of Generalized Equity:
K → K = KK = K of K = K confronts K = K K = K2 = K △K = K E K .
The term 'Externality Equity' herein denotes a form of non-stockholder stakeholder equity which arises from principles extending those already extant and precedented in the "equity" tradition of case law.
It arises, in particular, from the principle that the ownership of capital, however legitimately acquired, does not convey to the owner the unlimited right to inflict harm and damage upon other citizens and upon society as a whole.
It arises also from the further principle that the best locus in which to adjudicate and mitigate the externalities generated by the operation of capitalist enterprises — the external costs or costs imposed upon third-parties whose interests are not represented in the traditional institutions of private capital governance — is the locus of their origination: the very heart of capital governance itself.
External, governmental regulatory bureaucracies, legislatively chartered and overseen, are subject to the plutocracy's bribery of the legislatures and to the "revolving door" bribes of later industry-employment offered to the regulating bureaucrats by the regulated industries.
Lawsuits, brought before the judiciary, against the personal and social damages inflicted by those industries, are generally too delayed, and too costly, for the citizen litigants, who face the ultra-deep-pockets of their plutocratic, mega-corporate adversaries.
Such exclusively litigious actions for redress are also exposed to the gradual corruption of the judiciary by the plutocracy's bribery that increasingly controls the legislature and the executive branches, which share the power to appoint the central judiciary.
On the other hand, nationalization of industry, and state-monopoly of all capital, threatens to resurrect the unchecked, absolute, absolutely-corrupt, and soon-totalitarian dictatorship of Stalinist or Fascist state-capitalist bureaucracies, and must therefore count as another non-solution, and as, in reality, either an acceleration of, or a prevenient attainment of, the very «telos» of the totalitarian «taxis» of advanced/decadent capital.
The 'Externality-Equities' initial phase of 'Equitism' envisions the constitutional-amendment provision and partially courts- and legislatures-regulated operation of 'bicameral' boards of directors in all capitalist enterprises of sufficient size and social impact, with a 'second house' of local-community-elected public directors in all local operating units of such enterprises.
These 'publics' boards' would have constitutionally- and legislatively-ceded authority over the 'externalities budgets', the 'quanto-qualitative', externalities-production local annual operating plans of these enterprises — thus representing, at the very heart of corporate governance, the 'externality-equities' owned collectively, in a collective property-rights, public property-rights, or social-property-rights application of the "Coase Theorem", by each such local-community's citizens, as public stakeholders, in virtue of this, their new and special kind of [social]-property right.
The traditional board of directors and its delegates, representing the ownership of 'internality-equities' by the traditional stockholders, would continue to have authority over the dollar-/other-denominated, financial annual operating plan.
Discrepancies between the two operating plans would have to be negotiated between the two "houses" in accord with the constitutionally and legislatively mandated rules, with constitutionally and legislatively prescribed and regulated judicial review and/or arbitration in the event of deadlock/negotiation-failure.
Any effort by the plutocracy to bribe the thousands of grass-roots public directors elected in local communities all across the landscape would face prohibitive costs and risks of exposure because of their vast multiplicity.
Such massive bribery would be rendered more difficult also by the base-level, the radically "town-hall"-, "grass-roots"-democracy-restorationist character of the institution of 'externality equities; by the fact that the locally-resident citizens eligible to be elected as public directors would be fighting to defend their families, their homes, their local communities, and their very lives — e.g., from local toxic pollution, lethal to the lives of their children and their other loved ones, produced, typically, by nearby capitalistic firms, or even produced by nearby 'stewardship-equity' producers-cooperatives, those in which human decency is outstripped by desire for monetary earnings [hopefully less typically] — in a way and from a vantage which would be very non-abstract, very direct and personal, compared to the vantage of the traditional long-distance central government legislator.
In any case, attempts by the plutocracy, and/or by their subordinate capitalist-class elements — elements technically termed 'the drooling greedies' in our social-scientific nomenclature — to buy-off the vast number of citizen-directors nationwide, and, eventually, worldwide, would break the bribery budgets of even the super-richest of the super-rich.
It is expected that Associations of Public Directors, coordinating 'meta-enterprise' level policies at the local, regional, national, and eventually, at the international levels, will "naturally" tend to emerge over time, perhaps initially as a new kind of NGO [Non-Governmental Organization], and to eventually become institutionalized, 'constitutionalized', and 'electorialized'.
This will create a situation of "dual power" between the political-economic 'Associations of Associations' and the traditional, political branches of capitalist social governance.
But this should not be posed as one of unstable "dual power", leading inevitably to the monolithic "total victory" of one of the 'duals', and the "total annihilation"/"abstract negation" of the other.
Rather, it should be grasped as the basis for a new, fourth branch of government — of a partially democratized economic governance branch — and of an «aufheben» conservation/elevation/transformation of the earlier three branches of political government, leading to a government constituted by sustained quadruple power.
The new, democratic-economic governance branch would then exist in a higher, stabilized, ongoing — and partially conflicts-conserving, conflicts-appropriating, and conflicts-harnessing — dialectical 'uni-thesis', or complex unity, with the three earlier branches, thereby supplying economic checks and balances that the political branches cannot supply, and that help to block the path, otherwise irresistible, toward their total prostitution and plutocratic totalitarian degeneration.
These Associations of Public Directors would supply a geography-based externalities 'container' and 'constrainer' for the many individual capitals operating within a given locality or region — capitals otherwise relatively '''abstracted''' and geographically indifferent; indifferent to the deleterious impacts of the externalities they generate upon their local portions of humanity.
These Associations would thus constitute the «monads», or units, of a 'Meta-Capital' entity, with each such «monad», or unit, of democratic-economic governance, 'made up out of' a heterogeneous multiplicity of "individual capitals" within its geographical locus-of-authority, in a democratic-jurisdictional sense.
These Associations would geo-demographically 'contain' and 'internalize/subsume' the many capitals operating within their geographical jurisdictions, in terms of, and placing checks and balances upon, the otherwise unlimited production of externalities which the combination of gargantuan oligopolist agglomerations of capital, their monopolized/prostituted mass media of communication, and their prostitute, increasingly '''plutocracy-owned''' political governments would otherwise unleash.
The "pure" private capital principle is a principle of private profit maximization at any human social/externality cost. It is limited, within the epoch of the «Kapitals»-system, only by political checks, i.e., by economically-exteriorized, government legislature/bureaucracy regulation, and by litigation-triggered judicial intervention, in a context where these branches of government are increasingly prostituted to a few, dominant agglomerations of internationalizing, plutocratic capital-ownership.
Thus, the capital principle, when in its full development, at zenith, in the sub-epoch of its decadence — if not integrated within a higher socio-economic principle, i.e., as it moves to become the organizing principle of global society as a whole; of the human-social-reproductive totality, will become a principle of monopolistic, omni-ravenous, socially-cannibalistic rapacity and parasitic, vampiric malignancy; of unchecked, "absolute", and therefore "absolutely corrupt" power, which will ravage and destroy the totality of human society, the human species, and the planetary biosphere as a whole.
That capital-principle, as personified in the capitalist plutocracy, so becomes in a vain defense of its power-prerogatives.
That plutocracy sees those prerogatives as mortally threatened by the further growth of the productive forces, as materialized in, and immanent in, the improvement of majority [proletarian] standards of living, including standards of [scientific and technological, etc.] education, world-wide, as required by the growing "technical composition" — of capital, and, therefore, of labor as well.
That plutocracy therefore, in the decadent phase of capitalist development, begins to systematically attack those standards.
It attacks those standards via the various 'socially-atavistic', "back-to-nature" ideologies it concocts, aiming to dupe the producing majority into acquiescence in a catastrophic, genocidal contraction of human social reproduction, as if "the survival of the biosphere" required such a massacre of humanity that, in reality, the plutocracy requires, in its vain attempt to hold onto its rapacious power.
This 'meta-model', for E, predicts no undialectical, abstract negation of the «Kapitals» social relations ontology.
It predicts no 'Jacobinoid-Leninoid' "absolute abolition"; no 'convolute' extinction/total de-manifestation, and no fantasy, utopian de-materialization of the "capital-relation".
The 'social praxis ontology' of the 'Raw Appropriation of Nature's product[ion]s', or of "predation", did not vanish with/was not abolished by the emergence of that of Goods / intra-tribal Gifts, although the former was partly '''subsumed''' by the latter.
The Goods/Gifts 'socio-ontology' did not vanish with/was not abolished by the emergence of that of Commodity barter [although the former was partly '''subsumed''' by the latter].
The Commodity 'socio-ontology' did not vanish with/was not abolished by the emergence of that of Money [although the former was partly '''subsumed''' by the latter].
'The Money social relation of production ontology' did not disappear with/was not abolished by the emergence of that of «Kapitals» [although the former was partly '''subsumed''' by the latter].
On the contrary —
The 'multi-Appropriation', or 'cross-Appropriation' socio-ontological category of '''human production of fit[ted]-for-humans-by-humans use-values from "raw" materials produced by extra-human Nature''', i.e., of human-Goods / intra-tribal -Gifts production, herein denoted by G, first emerged as merely a new «species» of the A«genos»; of the 'human Appropriation of Nature's product[ion]s in "Raw"/virtually unimproved [for humans] form' «genos».
But this new, G «species» — its burgeoning population, or «arithmos», of G «genos» «monads», or '''units''', of "Goods" — soon self-reproduced / out-grew the population, or «arithmos», of the «monads» ['''units'''] of the A «genos», at such a rate and to such an extent that the new G «arithmos» has become, 'psycho-historically' — in the minds, in the memes — of the humans who animated it, ever since, a new «genos» «arithmos» in its own right; a [new, higher, qualitatively different, socio-ontologically-different] 'gen'-eralization of the '''Appropriation of extra-human Nature''' «genos».
Indeed, this irruption of the new 'meristemal' Goods «genos» [re-]acted back upon, 're-fluxed' upon, its predecessor «genos», initially only subsuming that predecessor «genos» '''formally''', by virtue of G having become the new, 'meristemal', leading paradigm of human social-relations-of-production, and of human social-forces-of-production, praxis.
But, eventually, that new «genos» '''really''' subsumed its predecessor «genos»; it largely '''appropriated'' and '''hybridized with''' that predecessor «genos», yielding a "complex unity" 'socio-ontology', as exemplified in that of a tool-equipped [i.e., '''Goods'''-equipped] hunting praxis, and in that of a tool-equipped digging/plant-appropriating/'''mining''' praxis, and in other such new human social phenomena, which are denoted, collectively, in the Encyclopedia Dialectica notation, by the "hybrid term"/'socio-ontological qualifier' qGA.
Likewise, the 'exchange-use', or 'exchange-use-value' socio-ontological category of [pre-Money] Commodity barter, herein denoted by C, first emerged as merely a new «species» of the G «genos»; of the '''human production of fit[ted]-for-humans-by-humans use-values from "raw" materials produced by extra-human Nature''' «genos».
But this new, C «species» — its burgeoning population, or «arithmos», of C «monads», or '''units''', of 'barterables'; of '''Commodities''' — soon self-reproduced / out-grew the population, or «arithmos», of the «monads» ['''units'''] of the G «genos», at such a rate and to such an extent that the new C «arithmos» has become, 'psycho-historically' — in the minds, in the memes — of the humans who animated it, ever since, a new «genos» «arithmos» in its own right; a [new, higher, qualitatively different, socio-ontologically-different] 'gen'-eralization of the Goods, [use-]value «genos»; a new kind of [use-]value: '''exchange-value'''.
Indeed, this irruption of the new 'meristemal' Commodities «genos» [re-]acted back upon, 're-fluxed upon', its predecessor «gene», initially only subsuming those predecessor «gene» '''formally''', by virtue of C trading having become the new, 'meristemal', leading paradigm of human social-relations-of-production, and of human social-forces-of-production, praxis.
But, eventually, that new «genos» '''really''' subsumed its predecessor «gene»; it largely '''appropriated'' and '''hybridized with''' those predecessor «gene», yielding "complex unity" 'socio-ontology', as exemplified in the emergence of the 'praxes' of barter-trading in "raw" goods, as well as in "finished" goods; in the emergence of intra-tribal barter, supplanting the intra-tribal '''Gift''' ethic and praxis, as extension of a barter praxis which, in its beginnings, was restricted to [predominantly war-like, or '''humans-hunting-other-/foreign-tribe/alien-humans'''] 'inter-tribal' relations, and in other such new human social phenomena, which are denoted, collectively, in the Encyclopedia Dialectica notation, by "hybrid terms"/'socio-ontological qualifiers' such as qCA, such as qCG, and such as qCGA.
Again, the 'general-exchangeables', or 'general-equivalents' socio-ontological category of Money-mediated Commodity exchange, herein denoted by M, first emerged as merely a new «species» of the C «genos»; of the '''barterable Commodity''' «genos» — as that new Commodity-«species» known, in the Marxian tradition, by the name '''Money-Commodity''' — a socio-ontological category which tends, over historical time, for 'praxical' reasons, to devolve upon a precious-metal Commodity, such as silver, or gold; the Commodity «species» of '''specie'''.
But this new, M «species» — its burgeoning population, or «arithmos», of M «monads», or '''units''', of 'gen-eral equivalents'; of the '''Money-Commodity''' — soon self-reproduced / out-grew the population, or «arithmos», of the «monads» ['''units'''] of the C «genos», at such a rate and to such an extent that the new M «arithmos» has become, 'psycho-historically' — in the minds, in the memes — of the humans who animated it, ever since, a new «genos» «arithmos» in its own right; a [new, higher, qualitatively different, socio-ontologically-different] 'gen'-eralization of the Commodity exchange-value «genos».
Indeed, this irruption of the new 'meristemal' Monies «genos» [re-]acted back upon, 're-fluxed upon', its predecessor «gene», initially only subsuming those predecessor «gene» '''formally''', by virtue of M-mediated circulation of Commodities having become the new, 'meristemal', leading paradigm of human social-relations-of-production, and of human social-forces-of-production, praxis.
But, eventually, that new «genos» '''really''' subsumed its predecessor «gene»; it largely '''appropriated'' and '''hybridized with''' those predecessor «gene», yielding "complex unity" 'socio-ontology', as exemplified in the emergence of the 'praxes' of the sale of "raw" extractions from extra-human Nature in exchange for Money, instead of via barter, as well as the exchange of "finished" goods for Money; in the emergence of "dues" & "tithes" and / '''redistributive Gifting"' of Monies to the temple/state, in the emergence of intra-tribal Money-mediated exchange of Commodities, at least partially supplanting the earlier-emergent intra-tribal barter praxis, of inter-tribal, inter-city-state, etc., tributes "paid" in Money form, as well as in "Commodities" forms, and in other such new human social phenomena, which are denoted, collectively, in the Encyclopedia Dialectica notation, by "hybrid terms"/'socio-ontological qualifiers' such as qMA, such as qMG, such as qMGA, and such as qMC, qMA, qMCG, and qMCGA.
Finally, to-date, the 'Money-Making-More-Money', or 'auto-catalytic exchange-value' socio-ontological category of «Kapitals», herein denoted by K, first emerged as merely a new «species» of the M «genos»; of the '''universal-equivalent Money''' «genos» — as the circulation-based, non-production-based, quasi-parasitic Money-«species» known theoretically, in the Marxian tradition, as the "'antediluvian «species» of Capital'" — e.g., as '''merchants' money-capital''' and as '''usurers money-capital".
But this new, K «species» — its burgeoning population, or «arithmos», of K «monads», or '''units''', of '''Money-Capitals''' — soon self-reproduced / out-grew the population, or «arithmos», of the «monads» ['''units'''] of the M «genos», at such a rate and to such an extent that the new K «arithmos» has become, 'psycho-historically' — in the minds, in the memes — of the humans who animate it, ever since, a new «genos» «arithmos» in its own right; a [new, higher, qualitatively different, socio-ontologically-different] 'gen'-eralization of the Monies exchange-value «genos».
Indeed, this irruption of the new 'meristemal' «Kapitals» «genos» [re-]acted back upon, 're-fluxed upon', its predecessor «gene», initially only subsuming those predecessor «gene» '''formally''', by virtue of K-mediated, mercantile, Money-buying and Money-selling of '''Commodity-Capital''', and the extraction of ['''usurious''' rates of] interest as the "price" for borrowing Money/mercantile Capital, having become the new, leading, 'meristemal' paradigm of human social-relations-of-production, and of human social-forces-of-production, praxis.
But, eventually, that new «genos» '''really''' subsumed its predecessor «gene»; it largely '''appropriated'' and '''hybridized with''' those predecessor «gene», yielding "complex unity" 'socio-ontology', as exemplified in the emergence of the 'praxes' of the mercantile offering of products produced in non-household production facilities, owned and provisioned by merchant/manufacturer capitalists, buying labor-capability as '''just another''' Commodity-supply for their production facilities, from labor-capability sellers/alienators, just as they bought, as Commodities, raw materials and tools for those same production facilities, from other merchant/manufacturer capitalists; in the emergence of 'praxes' of the production of "raw" extractions from extra-human Nature as Commodity-Capital on the same basis, by merchant/manufacturer capitalists, instead of by, e.g., family-producers, seeking merely supplementary Money for their own consumption-needs, needs not met by their own household production directly, not seeking self-expanding «Kapital», ever-expanding via profit, by means of exchange of their '''mere''' Commodities for Money, and in other such new human social phenomena, which are denoted, collectively, in the Encyclopedia Dialectica notation, by "hybrid terms"/'socio-ontological qualifiers' such as qKA, such as qKG, such as qKGA, and such as qKC, qKCA, qKCG, qKCGA, qKM, qKMA, qKMG, qKMGA, qKC, qKMCA, qKMCG, and qKMCGA.
Therefore, we also expect that, immediately after its irruption from out of K, that the new «species» of equity of the social-relations of production ontology of 'generalized equity', denoted herein by E, will enter into a "formal subsumption" of the entire predecessor, «Kapitals»-subsumed, K-subsumed, 'socio-ontology', due to its new, E 'social-relations logic' having become the new leading, 'meristemal' paradigm of human social-relations-of-production, and of human social-forces-of-production, praxis.
However, with time, later, we expect this new, now E «genos» of '''generalized equity''', developing as a new, higher, qualitatively different, socio-ontologically-different 'gen'-eralization of the «Kapital»-equity «genos», to '''really''' subsume all of its predecessor «gene», especially the «Kapital»-subsumed «gene»; to largely '''appropriate'' and '''hybridize with''' those predecessor «gene», yielding "complex unity" 'socio-ontology', as epitomized by the Encyclopedia Dialectica notation "hybrid term"/'socio-ontological qualifier' for the 'culminant' socio-ontological category, qKMCGA.
The latter denotes the 'real subsumption' of the entire, decadent, '''real domination of «Kapital»''', «Kapitals»-system by the social relation of production of 'gen-eralized equity', as denoted by E, or, equivalently, by qE:
E qKMCGA = qE qKMCGA = qKMCGA qEKMCGA qKMCGA.
That is, this E 'meta-model' anticipates, in continuity with all of these earlier 'meta-evolutionary' and 'meta-system' transitions identified in this 'meta-model', the dialectical, «aufheben» 'annulment-cum-elevation-cum-conservation' of the "capital-relation", via an appropriate 'containment' of, or 'self-internalization' by, and [self-]subsumption / "real domination" of Capital within, the 'meta-monadologically' higher social principle of 'Generalized Equity', as sketched above.
This 'meta-model' envisions the retention and conservation / transformation of the three traditional branches of political government, into a complex, conflictual, and conflicts-conserving unity of sustained quadruple-power with the new, 'economic-democratic' fourth branch, thus yet further generalizing the stabilized, conflicts-conserving, checks-and-balances delivering complex unity of the earlier-emerged, three, political branches.
It also envisions the subordination, but not the absolute dissolution, of the capital-principle.
Thus, is the capital-principle expected to be blocked, by popular power, from any longer attempting to organize, and to subjugate, the social totality.
A higher and democratic, humanistic principle of social ordering supersedes Capital in that role: the principle of 'Generalized Equity'.
But the latter principle allows the capital-principle, e.g., of price-competition and competition for customer-adherence, to persist in operation where it best orchestrates the extant hybridization of genomic and 'phenomic' human nature, providing vitally needed economic checks & balances that monopoly and state-monopoly economic governance so devastatingly lack.
The Plan of governance of The Global Association of Public Directors is designed to instantiate a principle of democratic self-governance of human organizations which we term 'Base-ocracy'.
Human-social self-organization structures/processes of this kind are base-constructed, base checked-and-balanced, and base-controlled.
This Plan, for example, requires that each voting member of each relatively wider-jurisdiction, or more «Genos», Generic, or '''General''' Association be majority-plus-elected by the whole base of its [relatively speaking] more «Species», Specific, or '''Special''' Association to which that member also belongs, and in which base that member remains active.
That member must remain active "in the trenches" — a participating member, in good standing with that member's peers — in, with, and of tha relatively more Special constituent Association, and/or of its base — in order to continue as an elected, voting member also of the more General Association — elected, mandated, and sustained [not recalled] by that base.
Each member of the more General Association must be at least majority-elected by, and, in writing, explicitly policy-mandated by, their more Special Association, or by the base.
Each such elected, mandated delegate to the more General Association is recallable, by majority-vote of the assembly of the members of their more Special Association, or base, at any time, e.g., for violation of their mandate.
All of this aims to ensure that the more General Association reflects the true policy-«Genos» of the «Arithmos» constituted by the Special Associations as the «Monads» of their more-«Genos» Association — thus reflecting the true policy-totality of the whole.
The psycho-historical model/idealization of the '''dialogic''' dialectic of deliberation within each such relatively-Special Association, as within its next-more-General Association, can be represented as follows, distilling manifold psycho-historical field observations of such human-social processes.
When a session of policy dialogue, or policy deliberation, opens, preparatory to a decision, or collective '''act''', of the Association, as collective subject, the first person to speak may set forth a '''thesis''' — or '''hypothesis''' — as to the '''sense of the whole''' Association; as to what policy/action it will support, and should therefore adopt.
That thesis, in those [rare] instances where the initial speaker captures, in this opening statement, an expression of the full view, '''truth''', and intent of all of the members of the Association as of that moment in their history, and in their ongoing self-/mutual-development; a thesis acceptable to all members of the Association, would also be the 'uni-thesis' — or '''dialectical synthesis''' — of the views of that Association, on the issue under deliberation, as of that moment in the [psycho-]history of that Association.
The test of such an expression is that it be followed by silence in terms of further 'contra-thesis' expression, and thence by unanimous consent and adoption by the Association.
However, typically, the first voice is unable to know, encompass, and express the views of the Association in its totality.
The work of dialogue and deliberation — the work of dialectic by the Association — is needed, required, and necessary, for the Association, to discover/forge its explicit self-knowledge, and self-expression, of its own truth for the psycho-historical '''moment''' and issue at hand, taking into account the new information about its own state, and about the state of the world in which it inheres, that was continually emergent, due to the continual 'onto-dynamasis' of that world, up to that '''moment''' — i.e., taking into account the relevant / '''moment-ary''' '''state of the totality'''.
Typically, the formulation expressed by the first speaker excludes part of that truth, in the minds of other members of the Association. That statement — because of its incompleteness[es], provokes a statement in response, by, e.g., the second to speak. This second policy-proposal assertion is 'contra-thesis' to the initial '''thesis'''. Further speakers may clarify/elaborate that 'contra-thesis'. Or, the third speaker may attempt to unite the mutually-supplementary content of the first '''thesis''' and of the 'first contra-thesis', in a 'first uni-thesis'. Or, a speaker subsequent to the third voice will typically attempt this. That 'first uni-thesis' will typically still strike many members of the Association as insufficient, provoking their expression of yet a 'second contra-thesis', and so on.
This 'dialogue-ic' dialectic will continue to self-iterate and spiral, building / «bildung» the explicit self-knowledge, and situation-knowledge, of the assembly, until a speaker is able to achieve a final synthesis, a final 'uni-thesis' formulation, for that psycho-historical moment — an 'nth uni-thesis' that '''provokes''' only silence, assent, and adoption, instead of an '(n+1)st contra-thesis', on the part of the rest of the Association.
The person who is able to state the '''moment-ary absolute''', or 'silencing uni-thesis', during deliberations on the updated mandate for a given more-Special Association's delegate to the next-more-General Association, may be one of the natural candidates to stand for election, by the whole base of that more-Special Association, as that delegate.
The person, the Association-member, able to conceive, know, express, and thus achieve the '''synthesis''' of a given '''momenta-art''', more-Special Association mandate tends to vary from moment to moment, and from crisis to crisis.
To the extent that private-capitalist Boards of Directors actually embody the "one share of capital equity stock, one vote" capital equity principle of "shareholder democracy", of "stockholder democracy", of '''capital-owner/-contributor democracy/voting''', of '''voting power in proportion to the capital-value contributed''', or of 'internality equity' — rather than honoring that principle only "in the breach" — then the structure/process of Board Committee and Sub-Committee praxis will approximate such a dialectic/dialogic process/structure.
That approximation will be biased and distorted by the inequalities of influence and voting-power — reflecting their differential capital-equity capital-value contributions and ownership — among the various stockholder directors, plus by the influence of the "insider-directors" from "appointed" senior management.
The structure/process of the disposition/management of 'externality equities' as a new class of collective, public, social property; of their economic-democratic governance of externalities — proposed herein as the «arché» of the post-capitalist social relation of production of 'generalized equity', in an 'Equitist' society of actualized '''political-economy''' [of comprehensive, or political-economic, democracy] — also incarnates these dialogic dialectic principles.
Note: For reasons of space, the Local, Provincial, and Continental levels / layers / scales of the above-depicted 'meta-monadological', 'meta-fractal' self-governance structure/process — or human-social self-governance 'eventity' — are not separately depicted in the «aufheben»-diagram above, as would be necessary for a more complete view of the proposed governance structure/process.
The Planetary, or Global Association of Public Directors [GAPD] is a 'meta1-«monad»'/'meta1-unit' of the «arithmos» of the Continental Associations of Public Directors «monads» / units.
Each Continental Association of Public Directors is, in turn, a 'meta-«monad»'/'meta-unit' of the «arithmos» of the National Associations of Public Directors [NAPD] «monads»/units for the nation-states located within that "continent".
Each National Association of Public Directors [NAPD] is, in turn, a 'meta-«monad»'/'meta-unit' of the «arithmos» of the Regional Associations of Public Directors [RAPD] «monads»/units, for all of the Regions within the nation-state of that NAPD unit.
Each Regional Association of Public Directors [RAPD] is, in turn, a 'meta-«monad»'/'meta-unit' of the «arithmos» of the Provincial/State Associations of Public Directors [PAPD] «monads»/units, for the "provinces", or "[nation-state sub-]states", constituting that "region", or RAPD unit.
Each Provincial/State Association of Public Directors [PAPD] is, in turn, a 'meta-«monad»'/'meta-unit' of the «arithmos» of the County Associations of Public Directors [CAPD] «monads»/units, for all of the counties geographically "contained in" that "province"/"state".
Each County Association of Public Directors [CAPD] is, in turn, a 'meta-«monad»'/'meta-unit' of the «arithmos» of the Municipal/Local Associations of Public Directors [MAPD] «monads»/units, for all of the localities / cities / municipalities, geographically constituting that "County".
Each Municipal [or Local] Association of Public Directors [MAPD] is, in turn, a meta-«monad»'/'meta-unit' of the «arithmos» of the local/municipal publics-elected public directors, serving on the 'externality-equities'-managing, second, public, "grass-roots" Boards of Public Directors '«monads»'/units' within each local/municipal operating unit of each externalities-producing firm impacting those local publics — those electing publics which are the public stakeholders — of that local/municipal geographical area.
Those "grassroots", electing public stakeholders thus publicly, collectively own, and hence have right of disposition over, the externality equities generated by the externalities — the "external costs" and "external benefits" — imposed upon those citizens by those firms' operating units' local ['''production'''] activities.
Those public stakeholders, or collective 'externality-equity' owners, via their elected Boards of Public Directors, collectively set the 'externalities budget' — governing the externalities that they will have to experience over each coming year — for the annual operating plan of each such operating unit, in continual, often adversarial negotiation / litigation / arbitration with the conventional, 'internality-equities' Board, or with the '''capital-equities Board'''-appointed "Executive Committee", or "Management Committee", of each such local operating unit.
However, it is crucial, to the essence of political-economic democracy, to note that, in this model, Associations of Public Directors do not elect, nor mandate — nor even, necessarily, supply, from out of their own ranks — the majority-elected, explicitly mandated, and recallable delegates who constitute the "higher", more '''generic''', Associations of Public Directors.
Only the entire public — the entire, geographical electoral-base of citizens — for each level of association of public directors, elects, and mandates, and supplies, the delegates to the next-"higher" Association of Public Directors, and also has the right to recall delegates it has elected if, in its sole judgement, those delegates have abrogated their base-stipulated policy mandates.
The process-goal of this governance-structure is this: to institute a 'meta-monadological', 'meta-fractal', nested, '''direct-democratic''', "grass-roots"-democratic, constitutionally, juridically-empowered, society-wide network of interlocking dialogues about the '''human-social morphology''' and 'socio-morpho-dynamics' / 'socio-morpho-genesis' / 'socio-meta-morph-osis' of a rapidly capital-relation-tyranny-transcending human society, and also about the total magnitude, and about the distribution / allocation, of the accumulation of capitalist-firms-generated — and stewardship-equity-cooperatives-generated — externalities that human-society will henceforth permit to be inflicted upon itself, by itself.
This economic-democratic governance process/structure is designed to help overcome the utter prostitution — by Big Corporate and Meta-Nazi Plutocracy "Big Money" — that otherwise vitiates the "popularly-elected" representative-democratic legislatures, executives, and judiciaries of conventional capitalist political-only "democracy", especially during the most "advanced", '[partial] state-capitalizing/totalitarianizing' stages of the historical accumulation / expropriation / concentration / consolidation / centralization process of capital-value ownership / control / power monopolization by an ever-shrinking minority of the human population.
Some of the remnant private-capital-based enterprises, and joint-stock-company capital-based enterprises, can be expected to tend to migrate, from Association of Public Directors jurisdictions which enforce strict equity in the management of those enterprises' productions and accumulations of socially-entropic externalities, to jurisdictions which tolerate the continuation of an abusive regime of external cost dumping upon their local publics.
Counter to the resulting tendency to form a "global race to the bottom", the Associations of Public Directors must be granted a constitutionally-mandated authority – e.g., via a tax on fixed capital / means of production assets — to replace the local supply and employment functions of any such "runaway shops", via the establishment of social-property-based, democratically producer-managed, cooperative enterprises, instituted via a grant of stewardship of the requisite means of production, under the 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' constitutional rights, to the most qualified local collective of citizens, as established by the constitutionally mandated, and legislated, qualification criteria and bidding process. They must also be constitutionally granted the right to organize boycotts of imports into their jurisdictions from such "runaway shops".
Through such processes, a gradual net conversion of "private" and "joint-stock" capital to '''social property''', under management via the 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' social relation of production, is expected to ensue.
The above-presented propositions conclude our preliminary introduction to the concepts of 'Comprehensive, or Political-Economic, Democracy', of 'Externality-Equity', of 'Generalized Equity', of 'Equitism', and of 'Equitarian Society'.
For a different but related view, regarding the traditional concepts of '''true soviets''', '''free associations of producers''', or '''producers' associations''' — of 'democratic communist', or of "council communist" — structures of direct-democratic human-social self-governance, simply click this link: Workers Councils and the Economics of Self-Managed Society