Talk:Sovereign Praxis

Expectations in the case of growth

Should the activity hereabout result in sufficient capital formation, I do intend to deploy that in intensifying the application of my labor by hiring other workers per the mode discussed in the prior entry. Thus, the services in these domains will in that sense continue to have me as their sole producer, albeit intensified by the lens of said free (in the sense of (really) contracted rather than employed) labor.

This will remain the case so long as I am the only equity class member.

Root (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2024 (PDT)

Hiring other workers

This is a primal sketch of my intent for structuring a worker combine. Before the conditions for that are in place I do plan to buy labor under these specific conditions:

1. The workers will be self employed contractors, substantially satisfying the US IRS definition distinguishing from employee.
2. The work assigned will always be work I could do myself and which will have been well specified so that is basically just execution of what I can communicate to the worker as the specifics required.
3. Aside from specified work product, no control is exercised in the workers performance of the job which they are presumed to be competent to execute on their own initiative and judgment.
4. The work will be paid in advance on a retainer rather than hourly or annual wage basis and where possible for specific deliverables for advisory level contractors and service contracts for journeymen.

Root (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2024 (PDT)

Creating value for exchange implies being a Capitalist in the actually existing form (not, continued)

Even before civilization, every adult member of a culture self reproduces on the basis of the acquired toolkit of that culture. The individual worker, artisan, etc. always is on first principles free to combine in whatever way they like with others in actual production. Various past and present worker guilds, syndicates, etc. demonstrate this fact.

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 expropriating wage labor production directly or by shareholder proxy, by contract or the 'permanent employment' gambit. I am simply carrying that to its limit, blowing off capitalist relations and earning only from what I do in fact build myself.

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 concerned, 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 but as before they will be offset by such benefit as to be welcomed, eagerly by some, grudgingly, tacitly, or surreptitiously by others.

This embodies my idea of the reform of Capitalism, the step needed to be taken to the thing which develops from Industrial Capitalism as it did from Feudal Capitalism and just as organically by building on it rather than trying to recreate the world naively on some ill considered basis. Root (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Current Thinking

My thinking on Capitalism vs. Socialism has evolved. Today, I see Socialism as an ambition to structure society rationally that collides with the actual state of the development of the masses in much the same way and for the same reasons as Democracy does, inevitably reverting to a natural norm of class rule. Instead of seeing Capitalism overthrown by Socialism, I see the thing called Capitalism being replaced in turn by the forces that created it with something that is a more complete expression of those forces. So greater individualism not less, more rather than less devolution of state power (which actually is consistent with the goal of stateless communism) and so forth.

These ideals (democracy, socialism) posit masses with leaders that can realize such ambitions. But in their degraded state of nature, the masses will only accept rulers and true leaders are shunned in a situation where pandering to that state is the only way to power in primitive culture. In essence, a true leader is a person who deals with the issues confronting society with forward solutions in contrast to the ubiquitous current situation where rulers give voice to various contending classes and identities in society as vendors supplying a commodity product to various consumer groups.

moved off front

"Greedom" (a nick observed 4719-08-08 on libera.chat#libera from NRW .de) — how perfectly it captures what calls itself freedom in the actually existing Capitalism! 'Greed(d)om' can also be read as name for the actually existing Capitalism, similar to 'Christendom'. a landing in the enwiki Corporatist space     Varieties of Capitalism     somebody's spin on Capitalisms