Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions

From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(95 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: maroon; color: white;">
<div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: maroon; color: white;">
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
<div style="background-color: black;"><blockquote><center><span style="font-family: 'Michroma', sans-serif;">Ayn Marx Rant 4719</span></center>
<div style="background-color: black;">
<blockquote><br><span style="position:relative;top:-5px;left:-15px;">'''Sovereign Praxis''' is [https://archive.org/details/utopianpedagogyr0000unse <span style="color:cyan;font-weight:bold;">Utopian Praxis</span>] <small>(cf. pp 13-15)</small>.</span>
<blockquote>
... hope is the celebration of the possible, or rather of specific existing possibilities, a celebration that depends equally on the intellect and the will. Our hope dictates that we recognize and act on a tendency actually existing in present reality that can lead to a potential future. This hope is not Utopian if by Utopian we understand a dream of the future that is separated from the present. Hope is better conceived as a temporal vector that points from the present into the future from a specific location, with a determinate direction and force.
<div align=right>Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri</div>
</blockquote><span style="position:relative;top:-5px;left:-15px;">'''Sovereign Praxis''' is a recapitulation ...</span>
<blockquote>But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. The numberless shades, that it at first sight presents, correspond to the intermediate stages lying between these two extremes. The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate classical form, only where the labourer is the private owner of his own means of labour set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso.
<div align=right>Kapital Vol I Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation</div></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><center><span style="font-family: 'Michroma', sans-serif;">Ayn Marx Rant 4719</span></center>
<div style="text-align: justify;width='95%'; background-color: #404040; color: white;">
<div style="text-align: justify;width='95%'; background-color: #404040; color: white;">
<center>Infrequently Asked Questions (4721)</center><blockquote style="position:relative;top:5px;left:10px;">
<center>Infrequently Asked Questions (4721)</center><blockquote style="position:relative;top:5px;left:10px;">
<ol>
<ol>
<li>Q: How do you know if you're trapped in the Capitalism?<br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> What exactly do you mean by 'Capitalism'?</span><br>
     A: If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem. Many subsidiary customs follow from this abiding faith in capital.<li>
    A:<span style="color:lime;"> Good question. Without qualification and in the domain of concepts, by 'small c' capitalism I mean a transformation that occurs in human industry where the production becomes for exchange value primarily and only secondarily for the good produced. As a social phenomenon a qualifying term is required, e.g. Early Capitalism, State capitalism, Philosophical capitalism (i.e. Objectivism), etc. In ordinary discourse in the bourgeois countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning form outside China. I don't in general say RC or the whole noun phrase, unless to make a distinction clear, it can be assumed.</span><li>
<li>Q: Aren't Capitalist relations necessary, inevitable?<br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
     A: No, they are wholly based on #1. Before Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production is actually based on use values.</li>
     A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span><li>
<li>Q: Don't buying and selling and money imply Capitalism?<br>
<li>Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
     A: Again, no not at all. These things predate and will survive Capitalism. Exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life.</li>
     A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly based on #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production always returns to its material basis in use values.</span></li>
<li>Q: Aren't you a Capitalist by selling the service you do and buying labor to build parts of that service?<br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> Don't buying and selling and money imply the Capitalist model of the enterprise/firm, joint stock ownership by non producers, etc.?<br>
     A: #3 answers the first part, the second I'm committed to not doing and sofar haven't. The distinguishing thing is I am in the end, in sofar as the thing delivered at the level of social production is concerned, the sole producer. The fact that I am able to do that upon the basis of considerable prior production notwithstanding, as that's the general condition of production at any advanced point in culture. It's my intention to build structures/platforms that allow others to operate as sovereign producers as well. It is not the acquisition of money, or even a great deal of it that makes you a Capitalist but rather the means by which the acquisition occurs. This distinction is already made clear in the difference between earned income and capital gains. Of course within the Capitalist framework, such as the US IRS, earned income includes earnings as a Capitalist by commanding wage labor production directly or by shareholder proxy. I am simply carrying that to its limit, blowing off capitalist relations and earning only from what I do in fact build myself. This embodies my idea of the reform of Capitalism, the step needed to be taken to the thing which succeeds it by building on it rather than trying to recreate the world naively on some ill considered basis. Ironically, the thing that is called capital gains, at least insofar as interest on capital which isn't directly engaging wage labor or engaged in specific profiteering is I think the least objectionable and most acceptable expression of the power of capital. When it is the pure embodiment of social labor power and separated from the  relations of production the contradictions will have been resolved. Ironically or not, I also expect that the next stage of Capitalism will heighten some elements currently perceived generally as negatives.
     A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form.</span> </li>
<li>Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't you a Capitalist by selling the service you do and buying labor to build parts of that service?</span><br>
     A: <span style="color:lime;">#3 answers the first part, the second haven't done as of last edit of this page. The distinguishing thing is I am in the end, in sofar as the thing delivered at the level of social production is concerned, essentially the sole producer. The fact that I am able to do that upon the basis of considerable prior production notwithstanding, as that's the general condition of production at any point in culture. Continued on discussion page. </span>
</li>
</li>
</ol></blockquote>
</ol></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<table style="background-color: #404040;" width=100%><tr><td width=80%>
<table style="background-color: #404040;" width=100%><tr><td width=80%>
Text I placed in EnWiki was for a time&sup1; used as the distinguishing characteristic of Capitalism, focused on markets and market actors. These days I'm more inclined to identify the Capitalist epoch in the economic history of a society  as the period where exchange value progressively drowns out every other form until further progression becomes impossible, critical problems are insoluable or actively blocked by and due to the distortion of fundament. At this point, and continously since its inception, there is a reassertion of more fundamental values, non-monetizable ones such as fairness, quality of life, life period, etc. not to mention use value itself, the ground reason for society in the first place. A rejection of finance Capital and the joint-stock company as parasitic strictures on social production ensues spearheaded by the nationalization of finance. Concluded with the dissolution or reversion of ownership of various joint stock conspiracies against social production to the producing workers. As far as defining Capitalism as a thing distinct from its material historical reality, that's pretty much for anybody to do as they please and a number of people have done. Just as the existing thing despite its fatal shortcomings has not been without the production of much good, there are formulations of Capitalism that its hard to argue with, like stateless communism they just haven't ever been or in principle aren't ever realizable. Considered as the expression of the individual as over and against the whole of society, if society is backward and baseless while  technical progress based on individual cognition proceeds unimpeded I do not expect that expression to even have begun to lose it's force. On the contrary, it's the opponents of Capitalism who appear ever weaker with the highpoint of their thought current being sometime in the mid 20th century insofar as being any thing other than a re-actor in human affairs. The Spectre doesn't really haunt much any more, the socialism of the 21st century, outside East Asia, is pretty much just a ghost of socialist christmas past and radical chic affectation.
I certainly mean the name in the sense of the sought Totaliser in [[Critique of Dialectical Reason|Sartre's Critique]].


I certainly mean the name in the sense of the sought Totaliser in [[Critique of Dialectical Reason|Sartre's Critique]].</td>
Text I placed in EnWiki was for a time&sup2; used as the distinguishing characteristic of Capitalism, focused on markets and market actors. These days I'm more inclined to identify the Capitalist epoch in the economic history of a society  as the period where exchange value progressively drowns out every other form until further progression becomes impossible, critical problems are insoluable or actively blocked by and due to the distortion of fundament. At this point, and continously since its inception, there is a reassertion of more fundamental values, non-monetizable ones such as fairness, quality of life, life period, etc. not to mention use value itself, the ground reason for society in the first place. A rejection of finance Capital and the joint-stock company as parasitic strictures on social production ensues spearheaded by the nationalization of finance. Concluded with the dissolution or reversion of ownership of various joint stock conspiracies against social production to the producing workers. As far as defining Capitalism as a thing distinct from its material historical reality, that's pretty much for anybody to do as they please and a number of people have done. Just as the existing thing despite its fatal shortcomings has not been without the production of much good, there are formulations of Capitalism that its hard to argue with, like stateless communism they just haven't ever been or in principle aren't ever realizable. Considered as the expression of the individual as over and against the whole of society, if society is backward and baseless while  technical progress based on individual cognition proceeds unimpeded I do not expect that expression to even have begun to lose it's force. On the contrary, it's the opponents of Capitalism who appear ever weaker with the highpoint of their thought current being sometime in the mid 20th century insofar as being any thing other than a re-actor in human affairs. The Spectre doesn't really haunt much any more, the socialism of the 21st century, outside East Asia, is pretty much just a ghost of socialist christmas past and radical chic affectation.</td>
<td align=center width=13%><br><html><a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty><img title="Le Brun, c. 4357" style="height:250px;position: relative;"  
<td align=center width=13%><br><html><a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty><img title="Rigaud, c. 4400" style="height:250px;position: relative;"  
  src=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Louis-xiv-lebrunl.jpg></a>  </html>
  src=https://meansofproduction.biz/images/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg></a>  </html>
</td></tr></table>
</td></tr></table>
&sup1; <font size=1>2022-10-09 Retained as of this point but morphed into structure.</font>
&sup1; <font size=1>Formally,  the monetization of values attempts to move to totality in this period.</font>
&sup2; <font size=1>2022-10-09 Retained as of this point but morphed into structure.</font>
&sup3; <font size=1>A direct application is equity market worship, the right solution to which is the elimination of non producer equity.</font>
<br>
<html>
<div style="position:relative;left:3px;top:5px;float:right;" >
<audio style="height:12px;" title=" 'Messiah, Comfort Ye, Ev'ry Valley' - Handel 1741. " controls source src="https://meansofproduction.biz/pub/ComfortYe.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> This &sect; has an audio but your browser does not support the audio element.</audio>
<div style="font-size:8px;color:cyan;"><center>This &sect; has a music track, mouseover for title.</center></div></div>
</html>
<br><br>
== Distinguishing Characteristics ==
== Distinguishing Characteristics ==
<table width=100%><tr><td><br><html><a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism><img title="Henry George" style="height:150px;position: relative;top:-10px;left:10px;"  
<table width=100%><tr><td><br><html><a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism><img title="Henry George" style="height:150px;position: relative;top:-10px;left:10px;"  
Line 34: Line 54:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
# In historical context, intensification and clarification rather than enervating grifts and obfuscation by various private or public conspiracies against social production. In global society a vast range of situations exists with respect to present and past social/labor relations of production.  Labor unions, the failed socialist states, and basic awareness of current human nature are among the things that give pause to any moves to worker solidarity. It is a notion that precedes me but which I intend to give the fullest expression, that cycles of Capitalism cannot cease until its principle has completed its useful role in development. So far, with Capitalism based on the joint stock company, we have not even seen a Capitalism of modern times equivalent to the individuality of principates, directorial and other traditional types, moguls/tycoons fronting such firms notwithstanding. For this reason, and by my personal inclination to support the principles of self determination, supreme individualism, autonomy and the natural right of private property in so far as works one creates one's self, I am resistant to fusion with any group that is unexamined or clearly in conflict with these principles, which the vast majority are intrinsically by their uncritical adoption of relations from the prevailing order. I am focused mainly on my productive powers and am only concerned with external social and distribution issues when they become specifically tasked subject matter for me. Prior to that, these issues are mere technical details to be addressed when the time of vintage doing for the Public Market is come.<br><br>
# In historical context, intensification and clarification rather than enervating grifts and obfuscation by various private or public conspiracies against social production. In global society a vast range of situations exists with respect to present and past social/labor relations of production.  Labor unions, the failed socialist states, and basic awareness of current human nature are among the things that give pause to any moves to worker solidarity. It is a notion that precedes me but which I intend to give the fullest expression, that cycles of Capitalism cannot cease until its principle has completed its useful role in development. So far, with Capitalism based on the joint stock company, we have not even seen a Capitalism of modern times equivalent to the individuality of principates, directorial and other traditional types, moguls/tycoons fronting such firms notwithstanding. For this reason, and by my personal inclination to support the principles of self determination, supreme individualism, autonomy and the natural right of private property in so far as works one creates one's self, I am resistant to fusion with any group that is unexamined or clearly in conflict with these principles, which the vast majority are intrinsically by their uncritical adoption of relations from the prevailing order. I am focused mainly on my productive powers and am only concerned with external social and distribution issues when they become specifically tasked subject matter for me. Prior to that, these issues are mere technical details to be addressed when the time of vintage doing for the Public Market is come.<br><br>
# [[:en:Workers' self-management|<font color=lime>Worker control</font>]]. This is actually present in the prevailing mode as a stipulation when workers are not employees, in order to make clear that the contract worker has assumed all the responsibilities of an employer. This control factor is generally useful to distinguish actually free independent workers from various kinds of exploitative labor resale where the labor is sold as contracted or outsourced and the relation between the worker and exploiter/reseller is one of employee/employer. A free worker is strictly self employed and deals with other employers as a peer concern, including any 3rd party agents. In particular, standard firms generally want the actually independent worker to show insurance and other liability limiting factors that they would have if dealing with the worker via a reseller that absorbs the cost of those factors, i.e. dealing with a legal peer in the labor transaction (or a subalterned unit if a direct hire).<br><br>
# [[:en:Workers' self-management|<font color=lime>Worker control</font>]]. This is actually present in the prevailing mode as a stipulation when workers are not employees, in order to make clear that the contract worker has assumed all the responsibilities of an employer. This control factor is generally useful to distinguish actually free independent workers from various kinds of exploitative labor resale where the labor is sold as contracted or outsourced and the relation between the worker and exploiter/reseller is one of employee/employer. A free worker is strictly self employed and deals with other employers as a peer concern, including any 3rd party agents. In particular, standard firms generally want the actually independent worker to show insurance and other liability limiting factors that they would have if dealing with the worker via a reseller that absorbs the cost of those factors, i.e. dealing with a legal peer in the labor transaction (or a subalterned unit if a direct hire).<br>
<html><div style="position:relative;float:right;width:350px;"><center><img title="Le Brun, c. 4357" style="height:250px;" src=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Louis-xiv-lebrunl.jpg><br>
<audio style="height:12px;" title=" 'Messiah, Why do the Nations so furiously' - Handel 1741. " controls source src="https://meansofproduction.biz/pub/WhyRage.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> This &sect; has an audio but your browser does not support the audio element.</audio>
<div style="font-size:8px;color:cyan;">This &sect; has a music track, mouseover for title.</div></center>
</div></html><br>
# Labor paid by value rather than job time. Standard capitalist practice is like softened chattel slavery where the master/capital or its proxy rents rather than owns the worker. Much obfuscation is spewed to cover this core relation of master and slave but it inevitably makes itself felt sooner rather than later especially when workers take formal freedoms seriously, particularly ones suited to and hard won from an early stage of capital-labor relations, and then encounter the reality of their status as (non-self) employees in a later triumphal stage.<br><br>In Work Breakdown Structures for my projects I may assign a wage to a tasks resource assignment. In this case the wage is a factor applied to my current retained day rate used with the estimated makespan strictly for planning purpose, without regard to the value of the completed task. For this reason, in cases where there is an excess of value relative to this wage, performing the task myself is indicated.<br><br>
# Labor paid by value rather than job time. Standard capitalist practice is like softened chattel slavery where the master/capital or its proxy rents rather than owns the worker. Much obfuscation is spewed to cover this core relation of master and slave but it inevitably makes itself felt sooner rather than later especially when workers take formal freedoms seriously, particularly ones suited to and hard won from an early stage of capital-labor relations, and then encounter the reality of their status as (non-self) employees in a later triumphal stage.<br><br>In Work Breakdown Structures for my projects I may assign a wage to a tasks resource assignment. In this case the wage is a factor applied to my current retained day rate used with the estimated makespan strictly for planning purpose, without regard to the value of the completed task. For this reason, in cases where there is an excess of value relative to this wage, performing the task myself is indicated.<br><br>
# Production for use as actual real reason for it. The capitalist firm ubiquitously proclaims that it is producing for society and generally silent about its actual motive which is extraction of profit in control of the exchange where the work product has become its private property . Worker production may have the production of surplus value realized in exchange as an economic criterion but it is the use value of the thing produced that is the purpose of the activity and surplus via exchange is not in general a requirement for undertaking production.  <br><br>
# Production for use as actual real reason for it. The capitalist firm ubiquitously proclaims that it is producing for society and generally silent about its actual motive which is extraction of profit in control of the exchange where the work product has become its private property . Worker production may have the production of surplus value realized in exchange as an economic criterion but it is the use value of the thing produced that is the purpose of the activity and surplus via exchange is not in general a requirement for undertaking production.  <br><br>
Line 44: Line 68:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
As commonly defined<ref>[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803124745503 <font color=lime>Oxford definition</font>]</ref>, means token ownership via shares in otherwise received capitalist production whether private, publicly traded, or state cap.
As commonly defined<ref>[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803124745503 <font color=lime>Oxford definition</font>]</ref>, means token ownership via shares in otherwise received capitalist production whether private, publicly traded, or state cap.
<html><div style="position: relative;top:-70px;float:right;"><center><img title="Gissey, c. 4353" style="height:250px;" src=https://meansofproduction.biz/images/Louis_XIV_habillé_en_soleil.jpg><br><audio style="height:12px;" title=" 'Messiah, For Unto Us a child is given' - Handel 1741. " controls source src="https://meansofproduction.biz/pub/ForUntoUs.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"> This &sect; has an audio but your browser does not support the audio element.</audio>
</center></div></html>


== See Also ==
== See Also ==
* [[Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy]]
* [[:en:Great Rhetra|<font color=lime>Great Rhetra</font>]]
* <span class=plainlinks>[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-china/article/abs/epiphanies-of-sovereignty-and-the-rite-of-jade-disc-immersion-in-weft-narratives/2AF5BC0D6E9DCC7AE0E9725C0545546F EPIPHANIES OF SOVEREIGNTY]</span>
* [[Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy|<font color=lime>Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy</font>]]
* <span class=plainlinks>[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-china/article/abs/epiphanies-of-sovereignty-and-the-rite-of-jade-disc-immersion-in-weft-narratives/2AF5BC0D6E9DCC7AE0E9725C0545546F <span style="color:lime;">EPIPHANIES OF SOVEREIGNTY</span>]</span>


== References ==
== References ==

Latest revision as of 08:13, 10 November 2024