Dear Psycho-History Organization Members,

Pasted-in below is Part 6., the final part, of the multi-part synthesis of Psycho-Historical Social Crisis Theory, whose overall title is --


MALADY AND REMEDY: WHAT'S WRONG, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT


-- encompassing the following sub-titled sub-parts --

Prescription: What To Do About It

How the Equitarian Reform Obviates the 'Techno-Depreciation' Dilemma

Endnotes



-- and available, in full, via the following URL --



www.equitism.org . . .



Regards,

Psi_Sci




Prescription: What To Do About It

The mission of the Equitist Advocacy group is to catalyze the popular re-foundation of global human society upon the principles of 'generalized equity'.

We seek to accomplish this mission by promoting the promulgation of 'Equitarian' constitutional amendments, of their enabling legislation, and of the democratic election of candidates committed to their implementation.

This implementation is designed to create, at length, a transition from the darkening present, to a brighter future.

The 'Equitarian Reform' is designed to drive a social transition out of the increasingly unjust, 'in-equitarian', incipiently totalitarian, multi-genocidal, [state-/private-]capitalist, monopolist/oligopolist/plutocratic political-economy of the present. The 'Equitarian Reform' is designed to drive a social transition in to an 'Equitarian', comprehensively democratic political-economy, founded upon the constitutional establishment of four new species of social, universal, fundamental, human-rights-based equity.

These four new species of socio-economic equity arise in the supersession of, and as a necessary supplement to, the existing, first, and original species of equity: capital-equity.

That is, that single, presently-elaborated species of equity is, by name, 'internality-equity', the capital-equity stockholder, ownership-rights-based principle of "one share, one vote"; of economic-equity stockholder democracy, however much that principle is, presently, honored mainly "in the breach".

The four additional classes of socio-economic and political equity — proposed to you, by the Equitist Advocacy group — can be briefly characterized as follows [For an extended exposition of these new categories of equity, see "Alternative to the Totalitarian Self-Degeneration of Capitalism: Political-Economic Democracy."] [e22]:

* 'Citizen Externality Equity' — is the proposed constitutional requirement that each local operating unit of each enterprise that imposes significant "externalities" or "external costs" upon its local public(s) — e.g., toxic pollution — must incorporate a democratically-elected, locally-elected, publicly-elected, public board of public directors, counterpart to the existing, standard, local "management committee", or "local governing board", appointed by the enterprise's head office private board of directors, with the public board and the private board, thus, having co-authority over the annual 'externalities operating budget' of that local operating unit.

The resulting structure of enterprise board governance would no longer be "uni-cameral"; we would have transformed it into a "bi-cameral" structure.

We members of the "grassroots" voting public, especially those of us local to each such externalities-generating enterprise, may be impacted — possibly fatally — by the externalities output of that enterprise. However, today, under present social relations, we have little recourse. We have little recourse, unless we own the offending capital, or unless we can afford to finance costly-and-uncertain litigation under capital-equity as the dominant form of '''social''' equity.

The second "house", the new, "popular house" of popularly-elected public-directors will give every participating member of the "grassroots", voting public: (1) a voice in setting the annual "budget" of such externalities that each such local operating unit is legally permitted to produce, (2) a voice in setting the rate of taxation for the 'externalities taxes' that each such local operating unit would be legally required to pay for the externalities that it is still permitted to impose upon the public, and upon its environment in general, and (3) a voice in the allocation of the new public revenues so generated, for the remediation of the social damages induced by those externalities still allowed, etc.

'Citizen Birthright Equity' — is the proposed constitutional requirement which establishes that each and every child born into equitable society shall be endowed, by that society, with a lifetime social trust fund, sufficient to support the expected lifetime healthcare, education, home purchase, retirement pension, and other social-baseline life necessities of that new citizen, with that individual's disposition rights over those societal funds defined so as to avert their misuse.

These 'Citizen Birthright' trust funds would be financed by a tax, on the 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' use of social property — e.g., on socially-owned production plant and equipment, ceded by society-as-a-whole, for use by a given, particular stewardship enterprise. This tax would, thus, constitute a '''social rent''' for those stewards' use of social property, designed to generate funds for the maintenance and expansion of societal self-investment, both human and instrumental.

* 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' — is designed to gradually supplant and supersede the capital-relation, by superseding the wagéd-labor and salaried-labor relationships, the latter, forming the core of the capital-relation. This new species of equity entails the constitutional empowerment of each citizen to participate in the co-formation of, and the democratic, 'one steward, one vote' co-conduct of the production and the democratic self-management of, localized, enterprise-level, associations of producers (i.e., socialized producers' cooperatives) on a 'one citizen, one vote' basis.

This means that each such citizen-producer would be empowered to act as a co-steward of that part of the total social property — in the form of, e.g., production plant and equipment — granted and '''rented''' to that citizen's qualified producer-association, as collective self-employer, by a local, public, social bank, itself also a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' co-stewardship association, democratically self-managed by its own citizen-producers, as collective self-employees.

This 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' right would include the right of each such citizen co-steward of such social property in-use to an equal share in the net profits of enterprise generated by that cooperative association of producers, as well as to a — perhaps unequal — base-salary in return for the collectively required productive participation in, and contribution to, that association for production, as democratically decided by the assembly of the co-stewards of that cooperative enterprise. Payment of those profit-shares and base-salaries to themselves by those co-stewards, would depend upon their productive contribution, and also upon their collective success in finding fellow-citizen customers for their product/service output, fellow-citizens/customers willing to pay a price sufficient to fund that salary and that profit-sharing, and for whose patronage they would face competition from other socialized stewardship cooperatives.

We are indebted, for key aspects of the this 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' concept, to David Schweickart, via his books Against Capitalism, and After Capitalism, though the ways in which we have appropriated the ideas expressed therein is entirely our responsibility / have not been vetted with him. [e23]

* 'Citizen Allocational Equity' — is the constitutional requirement that the proceeds of the social self-investment fund, generated by the '''social rents''' on the value of social property — production plant and equipment — granted by society for use in stewardship by qualified enterprise-level '''associations-of-producers'''/'''socialized producers' cooperatives''', will be allocated to the various geographical localities of the social territory on a per-citizen, per-capita basis. This requirement is designed to ensure that equal populations of citizens receive equal opportunities to contribute to, and, thus, to partake in, the human societal production of human and natural biospheric prosperity. This constitutional requirement might be subject to certain temporary "corrections of the past", designed to undo the adverse social consequences of past inequities of wealth and opportunity allocation.


How the Equitarian Reform Obviates the 'Techno-Depreciation' Dilemma

We envision a popularly-elected 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', constrained and regulated also by the popularly-elected legislature, to administer the provision of means of production to qualifying 'Stewardship Equity' associations of producers.

This Office should be a publicly-elected administrative entity, and should not be a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' socialized producers cooperative.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should not need to "turn a profit".

Therefore, "losses" due to 'techno-depreciation' can be safely absorbed by the budget of this central custodial institution.

The 'Stewardship Equity' associations should thereby be shielded from such losses.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should mediate the purchase, for each "plant and equipment" using 'Stewardship association', or 'socialized producers cooperative', of the "plant and equipment", and of any training in its use, required by that producers cooperative, from other 'Stewardship association' socialized producers cooperatives that produce such "plant and equipment".

The Office should procure and supply that "plant and equipment", and those training services, both initially, at start-up, and also when "wear and tear" physical depreciation, or technological "moral depreciation", require "plant and equipment"/skills replacement or upgrade.

It is in the interest of human society as a whole to upgrade the standards / "best practices", in terms of "plant and equipment"-embodied technology, rapidly throughout an entire branch of social wealth production, once a new standard / "best practice" technology clearly emerges in that branch.

It is also in the interest of society as a whole that individual 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises experience incentives to continue to innovate.

If such an enterprise is forced to share its inventions, with competing 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, through such branch-wide technology standards/"best practices" upgrades, does that not destroy the innovating 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise's incentive to continue to innovate?

One part of the incentive for a given 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprise to continue to innovate, given that the Citizen Stewards, who are the producers, are in charge of the enterprise, takes the form of the rewards of reducing the producers' necessary working time — and with it, of reducing the length of their working days — through the invention of truly '''labor-saving''' technologies, truly applied as such.

That incentive persists regardless of whether other, competing Stewardship enterprises share that same technology, and that same "disposable time" benefit, or not.

Moreover, a successfully-innovating, productivity-enhancing Stewardship enterprise will enjoy the profits-advantages of its superior productivity [profits that are divided into equal shares among all of its member-Stewards], vis-á-vis its competing, non-innovated Stewardship enterprises, until its innovation qualifies for a branch-wide standards/"best-practices" upgrade/transition, i.e., until the general adoption of its innovation throughout its branch.

The principles of 'economic-democratic' Social Policy at work here include the following:

1. Proven technological innovations / productivity advances — the fruits of "universal labor" — should be diffused as rapidly as possible throughout the social economy.

2. 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprises — 'socialized producers cooperatives' — are intended to compete principally on customer service quality, and on price, but not on technology.

For example, there is no great social benefit in driving such an enterprise to bankruptcy simply because another such enterprise "beat it to the punch" in implementing a technology-based advance in productivity, as long as the 'non-innovated' enterprise — using the [new] standard/"best-practices" "plant and equipment" and training, remains competitive on price and customer service quality.

The social objective of the conservation of inter-enterprise market competition in equitarian society is to avert the severe degradation of customer service quality, and the abusive escalation of prices, that are both so characteristic of private-monopoly, and of state-monopoly, capitalist enterprises.

Any 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise should have a legal cause of action, if it members feel threatened with insolvency, and consequent unemployment / self-redeployment to other / new Stewardship enterprises for its members, or even feel just that its Stewards'/members' profits-sharing is being markedly diminished by innovation(s) in the means of production, including in skill-sets, fielded by one or more of its competing Stewardship enterprises.

Such an enterprise should have the right to "bring" this "cause of action" before the popularly-elected, popularly-recallable jurists of the 'Social Property Court(s)', to see if it can prevail upon the jury of the Court to order a '''standards / best practices transition''' for its branch of wealth production.

Such a '''transition''' order would generalize the innovation of its competitor(s) to all other Stewardship enterprises competing in the same branch as well, the plaintiff enterprise included.

"Prevailing" in such a case, obtaining such a "standards/best-practices transition" order, would activate the 'techno-depreciation insurance' coverages, for '''retooling and retraining''', of all adversely-impacted enterprises in the branch, including of the plaintiff enterprise — of all such enterprises, holding "plant and equipment" social property, in stewardship, that would, by that order, be declared "obsolete".

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' would be engaged by that order.

That Office would then arrange for the production of new standard / best practices "plant and equipment" for all of the consenting, obsolete-"plant-and- equipment"-holding enterprises in that branch, by contracting with Stewardship enterprises that specialize in production of such means of production.

That Office would deliver the contractual allotments of the resulting new social property / means of production thus procured, after its production was completed, to each of those obsolete "plant and equipment" holders, in exchange for their obsolete "plant and equipment" holdings, and together with any requisite training programs, for their Citizen Stewards, in the safe and effective use of the new standard / "best practices" means of production.

All of the entailed procurement costs should be at the expense of the budget of the Office, as partially defrayed by the 'techno-depreciation insurance' proceeds from the affected enterprises.

The timing, and the scope-of-impact, of technological innovations in the Equitarian social context, as in the preceding Capitalist social context, involve uncertainty.

Therefore all 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, holding current "branch-standard"/"best-practices" social property in Stewardship, might be required, by action of the electorate, or of its elected legislature, to maintain 'techno-depreciation insurance' policies, via periodic payment of premiums to the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property'.

The goal of this insurance requirement would be to insure that sufficient productive resources were set-aside, and held in reserve at all times — resources sufficient to facilitate rapid response to 'standards / best practices transition' orders from the Social Property Court(s), via timely response to contractual orders for the production of new-vintage means of production "plant and equipment", and retraining services, received from the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', by those 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises that specialize in the construction of such "plant and equipment", and in [re-]training(s) in its safe and effective use.

By such a social system design, society as a whole, the social majority, gains from rapid economy-wide adoption of proven innovations in productivity, and incentives to such innovation are preserved, without penalizing or bankrupting the holders of the means of production thereby rendered obsolete, by penalties which would otherwise impose unnecessary, non-beneficial harm, and which might otherwise also foster a parochial, anti-social opposition to the social good of social productivity-enhancing innovation.

[]




Endnotes

[e0]

* Notes on our Use of Delimiters

The entire content of this document consists of hypotheses, demarcated by: []...[].

An exception is one deductive proof (derived rigorously from explicit assumptions), demarcated by: []-...-[].

Single quote-marks enclose 'self-quotes' of this text's own coinages: '...'.

Double quote-marks enclose exact quotes of others: "...".

Triple quote-marks enclose approximate, paraphrased quotes of others: '''...'''.

Double 'angle marks' enclose non-English words, whether transliterated or rendered in their native alphabets: «...».


Notes on our Use of 'Word-Embedded Parentheticals', and 'Phrase-Embedded Parentheticals' --

This text often uses 'word-embedded parentheticals', and/or 'phrase-embedded parentheticals', to 'appropriate' the ambiguities in current English usages, so as to amplify the meaning of a given phrase or sentence, by creating two [or more] distinct, but semantically parallel, or semantically convergent, readings of that "single" line.

Example A:

The phrase 'the dialectic of human-social formation(s)' is intended to invoke two distinct but convergent readings: (1) 'the dialectic of human-social formation', and (2) 'the dialectic of human-social formations'.

Likewise, the phrase 'The Dialectic of [the] Human[ized Portion of] Nature' is meant to evoke two 'mutually-supplementary' readings: (1) 'The Dialectic of Human Nature', and (2) 'The Dialectic of the Humanized Portion of Nature', i.e., of the portions of nature containing the '''self-objectifications''' of humanity, etched and inscribed into the [pre-human-]natural material via human labor.

Example B:

Consider the phrase 'the social-relations-of-[human-society/human-social-relations [self-[re-]]production'.

It is designed to evoke four convergent readings, namely (1) the social relations of production; (2) 'the social relations of social reproduction'; (3) 'the social-relations of social-relations-self-reproduction', and; (4) 'the social relations of human-society's 'self-production'. The concept of '''the social relations of production''', in the Marxian tradition, is paired with that of '''the social forces of production''', so that this multiple reading is also linked to that of the phrase 'the social [self-]force(s) of [human-society/social-relations [self-[re-]]production [/self-[re-productivity'[/'[self-]transformativity'].


Notes on our Use of Text Coloration

Wherever color emphasis occurs in this text, whether within quotations or otherwise, the color-coding standard applied is as follows:

Red text signifies entities which conduce to the 'meta-catabolic' (-1), annihilatory species of opposition [For an explanation of how red emphasis is applied, see "Notes on Our Use of Emphasis" below.];

Blue text that has not been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined, signifies neutrality (0), or the complementary species of opposition (e.g., the [mutually-inclusive/]'mutin'-defining "north" versus "south" poles of a magnet);

Blue text that has been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined, signifies that which conduces to the supplementary (+1), 'successory', or 'supercessory' species of opposition (e.g., 'contra-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes thesis; 'uni-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes both thesis and 'contra-thesis').


Notes on our Use of Emphasis

Throughout the authored passages in this "Malady and Remedy" document, emphasis is denoted at intensifying levels within the scope of those passages' usage of terms or phrases, via combining the three following text traits:

font weight (set to either normalized/non-emboldened or emboldened) emphasizes according to force/magnitude.

font style (set to either normalized/non-italicized or italicized) emphasizes according to frequency/acceleration.

text decoration (set to either normalized/non-underlined or underlined) emphasizes according to consequence/synergy.


Notes on our Use of Emphasis within Quotations

Throughout the quoted passages in this "Malady and Remedy" document, all emboldened, italicized, underlined, and colored emphasis — unless otherwise noted locally — has been added by the anonymous author(s) of this text.


Notes on our Use of Indentation

Longer quotations are indented — as are longer lists — in both cases, for visual clarity.


Notes on our Use of Headers

The document is divided up by banners and headers (a.k.a., "headings"), which get smaller as the "h"-size gets larger.
The title uses an "h1"-sized yellow-on-blue banner.
Main sections use the "h2"-sized green-on-blue banners.
Hypotheses and main topics begin with an "h5"-sized blue-on-green header.
Hypotheses and main topics use the "h6"-sized blue-on-green headers to denote their sub-topics.


[e1]

* Amos Harpaz; Stellar Evolution; A. K. Peters (Wellesley, MA.: 1994); pages 52-53 and 107-111.

[e2]

* "U. S. Price Levels [from] 1665 to 2005, in Constant (2005) Dollars"
* oregonstate.edu . . .

[e3]

* "Key Quotes on Techno-Depreciation, Fictitious Capital, and the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall":

Capitalist Crisis Studes; 'Part A — As Perceived by Pro-Capitalist Economists' (November 14, 1976);
www.adventures-in-dialectics.org . . .;

Capitalist Crisis Studes; 'Part B — As Perceived by Marx and by Writers Relating to the Marxian Tradition' (November 18, 1976);
www.adventures-in-dialectics.org . . ..

[e4]

* Charles Babbage; On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures; The Echo Library (Teddington, Middlesex, U.K.: 2008); page 161.
* www.gutenberg.org . . . — avails a free download of the book.

[e5]

* Harold C. Livesay; Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business; The Library of American Biography (NY: 2007); pages 127-128.
* www.worldcat.org . . . — for local library availability

[e6]

* "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (film released on October 2, 2008)
* video.google.com . . . — free access to this film on Google
* www.youtube.com . . . — free access to this film on YouTube
* www.zeitgeistmovie.com — related information

[e7]

* Geert Reuten, "The Incompatibility of Prolonged Technical Change and Competition: Concurrence and the Socialization of Entrepreneurial Losses through Inflation"
* www1.fee.uva.nl . . .

[e8]

* Joseph M. Gilman, The Falling Rate of Profit: Marx's Law and Its Significance to Twentieth-Century Capitalism
* www.amazon.com . . .

[e9]

* "Zeitgeist: The Movie" (film released on June 18, 2007)
* video.google.com . . . — free access to this film on Google
* www.zeitgeistmovie.com — related information
* educate-yourself.org . . . — further discussions regarding the film

[e10]

* The text makes the following claim: "Both (1) reduced commodity unit-revenues from sales, resulting from reduced commodity unit-prices, and (2) sales revenues episodically reduced by write-offs of part or all of the historical cost of 'techno-depreciated' "plant and equipment", i.e., "fixed capital", can reduce the R numerator of the profitability-measuring "Return on Investment", net-Revenue-over-fixed-capital-Investment, or
(Returns / Investment), ratio, relative to its "plant and equipment" Investment-cost, or I, denominator.

Note that effect (2) also reduces the I denominator, by an equal amount of techno-depreciation write-off, d, to that which reduces the R numerator, but the numerator-reduction-effect predominates with respect to the magnitude of the "Return on Investment" ratio as a whole, for,

if I > R > d > 0, then ((R – d)/(I – d)) < (R/I)."

Thus, we have the claim that, given any rational numbers, I, R, and d — i.e., given that I, R, and d "are members of" or "are elements of" (∈), the number set Q, wherein,

Q = {...–3/2...–2/2...–1/2...0...+1/2...+2/2...+3/2...} —

and, given that they are quantitatively interrelated as follows:

I > R > d > 0, that it then must be the case that
((R – d)/(I – d)) < (R/I).

Using '&' to signify "and", '=>;' to signify "implies", and "Q.E.D." to denote (the Latin phrase) "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", or "which was to be demonstrated", we have the following proof structure:


[]-

Given:

I, R, d in Q & I > R > d > 0



To Prove:

I, R, d in Q

& I > R > d > 0

=> (R/I) > (R – d)/(I – d)



Proof:

Assertion #1:
R < I

Justification:
This is given.


Assertion #2:
& d > 0

Justification:
This is given.


Assertion #3:
Rd < Id

Justification:
Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 1), by the same positive factor, in this case, (d), preserves the inequality.


Assertion #4:
–(Rd) > –(Id)

Justification:
Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 3), by the same negative factor, in this case, (–1), reverses the inequality.


Assertion #5:
RI + –(Rd) > RI + –(Id);

RI – Rd > RI – Id

Justification:
Adding the same increment, in this case, (RI), to both sides of an inequality, in this case,
(Assertion 4), preserves the inequality.


Assertion #6:
R(I – d) > I(R – d)

Justification:
This is achieved by "factoring", that is, by the virtue of the distributivity of multiplication over subtraction.


Assertion #7:
& I > 0

Justification:
This is given.


Assertion #8:
(R/I)(I – d) > (R – d)

Justification:
Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 6), by the same positive factor, in this case, (I), preserves its inequality.


Assertion #9:
& I > d

Justification:
This is given.


Assertion #10:
I – d > d – d

Justification:
Subtracting the same increment, in this case, (d), from both sides of an inequality, in this case,
(Assertion 9), preserves the inequality.


Assertion #11:
I – d > 0

Justification:
This is by definition of the specific rational
number 0.


Assertion #12:
(R/I) > (R – d)/(I – d)

Justification:
Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 8), by the same positive factor, in this case,
(I – d), preserves its inequality. Q.E.D..

-[]

[e11]

* anonymous; "The Heart and Soul of Marxian Theory" (January 25, 2008).
* www.point-of-departure.org . . .

[e12]

* anonymous; "GS9: Capital Asset Bubble Engineering: An Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Arsenal of the Ruling Plutocracy" (September 18, 2008).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e13]

* Jules Archer; The Plot to Seize the White House: The Shocking True Story of the Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR; Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. (New York: 2007); pages 22, 27, 29, 30-32, et passim.
* www.amazon.com . . .

[e14]

* anonymous; "GS11: The Great Depression, World War II, Hitler, and the 'Rocke-Nazis'" (September 18, 2008).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e15]

* Sam Schechner; "Nuclear Ambitions: Amateur Scientists Get a Reaction from Fusion" in The Wall Street Journal (Monday, August 18, 2008 — Vol. CCLII, No. 41); page 1.

[e16]

* Amateur Nuclear Fusion — by Raymond Jimenez; Lulu Publishing (September 18, 2008)
* iecfusiontech.blogspot.com . . .
* www.lulu.com . . .

[e17]

* anonymous; "GS3: The Long History of the 'Rocke-Nazi' Suppression of Nuclear Fusion Energy Development, and the Decoy of Linear-Equilibrium 'Tokamak' Fusion" (January 02, 2008).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e18]

* anonymous; "GS5: Fusion Breakthrough" (January 02, 2008).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e19]

* anonymous; "GS10: Meet the 'Meta-Nazis' Face-to-Face" (September 18, 2008).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e20]

* anonymous; "GS12: Some Hypotheses Concerning the Lobby for Global Genocide" (September 18, 2008).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e21]

* anonymous; "GS1: Global Strategic Hypotheses — Towards A Strategy for Humanity" (March 02, 2007).
* www.global-samizdat.org . . .

[e22]

* anonymous; "Alternative to the Totalitarian Self-Degeneration of Capitalism: Political-Economic Democracy" (June 25, 2008).
* www.equitism.org . . .

[e23]

* David Schweickart; Against Capitalism; Cambridge University Press (Paris: 1993).
* www.amazon.com . . .

* David Schweickart; After Capitalism; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (New York: 2002).
* www.amazon.com . . .