"all past history was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange."

Engels

 

When we look at history....whether primitive times, monarchs. Oligarchs,  Plutocracies, Theocracies, Feudalism, Capitalism or what have you, every era of history, the one constant in every era is A) The modes and ownership of production 

B) The Standing of the Class struggle 

 

Now I bring that up to tie this into one of the most important processes of Evolution as far as human intelligence, guidance and as we've seen from the times of cavemen,  societal collectivism...That's philosophy. 

Philosophy, is the way of thinking that has helped guide the way of human thought and as the modes of production has evolved, so has the philosophy.  

 

in the early 17th century, we had The official Rise of Capitalism with Adam Smith. Before we get to that,  we were start with the system that came before (Mercantilist) philosophy that came about was Josiah Child. He was the proponent of Mercantilism and a pioneer of free trade.   

"Their giving great encouragement and immunities to the Inventors of New Manufactures, and the Discoverers of any New Mysteries in Trade, and to those that shall bring the Commodities of other Nations first in use and practice amongst them; for which the Author never goes without his due Reward allowed him at the Publique Charge."

Before Mercantilism, there was no real form of commodity production, it was very minimal, only to be expanded by Mercantilism. 

Next to come was capitalism, where the real Class struggle started, it had been slave and master, Monarchs and peasants, Lords and subjects, but with Capitalism, We see a new form of historical struggle in classes with a 3 tier heirarchy (Rich, Working Class [Aka Proletariat] and Poor). 

Now Capitalism has been quite evolutionary in its philosophy and the first philosopher in Capitalist economics was Lassiez-faire Capitalist Adam Smith. 

 

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

Adam Smith

 

Lassiez-faire is the first official economic theory of capitalism where the government is not involved in the affairs of private businesses, giving the individual owner the chance to flourish in the free market. From this system, came wage labour, Commodity production, the industrial revolution and in a sense the market was anarchistic. The downside came to lack of workers rights, the beginning of exploitation of labour (we will get to that later). Known as Classical Economics and the basis of all start ups in capitalism to evolve from the primitive feudal and monarch systems. The idea was the equal opportunity for "happiness"

What was forgotten,  is that capitalism was based on the darwinist properties of survival of the fittest and as the wealth grew for some,  poverty grew for most.  

 

So to counteract that and to bring economics to a modern era came the "Golden Age of Capitalism" and with that,  came Keynesian economics. The Liberal, progressive form of capitalism that relies on government spending and aggregate Demand. 

 

"The importance of money flows from it being a link between the present and the future."

 

John Maynard Keynes

 

The fundamental basis of Democratic Socialism in Scandinavia,  and Very clear basis of fascist economics (which is what makes fascism right wing, since social darwinism is a right wing view) 

[Note: Most mix hitlers term of socialism with Marxs; in the words of Adolf Hitler on Socialism:"has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

He was also quoted as saying: "I had only to develop logically what social democracy failed.... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd ties with a democratic order.... Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings...." In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".]

 

The note is important because He ran Keynesian economics with the right wing Social Darwinism, but Keynesian economics were the next step. 

 

Now as we see about the previous systems, Class struggle was in infancy. With Lassiez-faire, that's where it really started. As the Industrial Revolution happened, so did the Rise of the Proletariat. The reason for this, is due to the anarchist nature of the Markets and Social Darwinist view (increasing the survival of the fittest aspect which, in fairness is necessary to the progress needed in industry and agriculture of the continuous improvement of humankind) but the problems of surplus-value, Marginal cost  (over production), concentration of capital  (which will tie in to the philosophical point of this whole essay) and because of that class struggle you had Marxism come about. 

 

Before Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, economic philosophy was always for the most part geared towards the economic philosophies that included Private ownership, (inadvertently) class struggle between rich and power, and even before wages and the time of the proletariat, Cheap labour and/or Slave labour. When Marxist theory came, it turned economics upside down, in a world that had been to the philosophy of Metaphysics, Deitism, Idealist thinking and economics based on Private ownership, Commodity production, slave production, Wealth inequality with very darwinist social backing. 

 

Marxism was for all intents and purposes not just economic as it explained surplus-value, the inevitable exploitation of labour and other such contradictions within the laws of capitalism  (most notably Adam Smith and Laissez-faire capitalism) but it hits on a philosophical level and a historical level. What Marxism from a philosophical standpoint acknowledges where capitalists of all lack is broken into 4 things: 

1. That through Dialectical materialism  [The Philosophy of Matter and motion with the notion that, from a historical standpoint, that humanity evolves through the modes of production and types of exchange] Matter is only as Strong as the Motion it carries. 

2. That history is still useable to the point that through dialectics you take the prior thesis, use a current antithesis and find a synthesis  (Mercantilism=thesis, Adam Smiths philosophy=Antithesis  [as Adam completely went opposite to Mercantilism in philosophy] and Laissez-faire would be the Synthesis at the time) and this carousel has been a constant struggle. 

3. That labour not only generates wealth but, as the evolution of the modes of production, takes a  bigger role and if given the right conditions, can group together and through revolution themselves seize the mode of production themselves.  

4. That, as opposed to idealist philosophy before it, takes the idea of Materialism and through dialectics shows that a physical change of conditions is superior to that of the idealist. 

 

Now there are of course many different systems but Marxism, Laissez-faire, and Keynesian are the 3 most important as they have been used extensively. But I used a very basic reference to these 4 systems to explain a new philosophy That is economic as well and challenges the Capitalist system as a whole as it pertains to Matter and motion. [Note: Anarchy is excluded for it is only Stagnant and no real Motion transfers or moves to the only 2 systems of Capitalism, it's only a middle road since all forms of anarchy have the need to stop progress of either system] 

 

That leads me to Dialectic Equations. These equations are the formula to dialectically explains the Shift of motion as dictated by matter in capitalism as well as the shift to Socialism and eventually communism. 

 

Since the focus is on Capitalism, let's begin there.  M (-m-Ed)+SV=C)] is the base equation of Capitalism. To understand this you have to think about dialectics, the one thing we look at is change of conditions. Just as variables in mathematics, think of dialectics as variables to the human equation  [due to the scientific nature which humans evolution would very greatly reflect]. So to break this equation down,  We need to look at the variables in this equation and the fact that in capitalisms beginning, the markets were created and that those creators of the respective markets are in form, a government or rely on one,  we also need to look at, in terms of motion, Capital is the energy by which society is formed. [C is Capital] Another fact we look at is the fact that in energy terms, motion or rather all motion is dictated by matter. So off of this basis, you have 2 forms of matter, you have the Dominant and the Submissive. 

[Note: M is minority aka Capitalist class, m is the majority or proletariat, Ed is education, SV is surplus profit, more variable to be explained later]

 

In Capitalism specifically, having already set that Capital is motion, This motion was created by M, it was (using the Initial Market Theory) the introduction of the anarchist beginning of the market systems which sparked what would quickly become the industrial revolution. From Laissez-faire came the evolution of wage labour, which combined with the social darwinist attitude of competition and the thought of self interest,  this led to the birth of surplus-value and this added variable (SV) leads to M+SV=C+SV, now, this is starting from ground zero in capitalism, the "Invisible Hand" (or natural phenomena i.e. market dynamics, Marginal cost etc) precedes this first, so to explain this in light, before markets come resources (which when used in various ways for benefit of said community), what capitalism did was take government out of the ability to own and shape markets, give the ability to individually own the means of production and drive profit while creating a large amount more of products and drive self interests and Profit while leaving the "governance" to the Invisible hand and in doing so, concentrating the markets, and moving the motion more towards the owners of the Markets. Now, a variable I left out is Competition. 

 

[Note: with the invisible hand present and, according to Adam Smith, the sort of the natural regulation it is above all] 

Competition is the sole catalyst for the Initial progress of capitalism. Under Laissez-faire, the invisible hand and the anarchist nature (assuming no government is present) the equation would be;

 

I(M+SV)=1/2C (if IMT is applied it'd be half at least if we account the start up of markets...like filling up a blank canvas) 

 

Now the factor that builds this equation to reflect Capital and its domination of Motion. Where does the Proletariat play in this role? Well as the turn of the Industrial Revolution, as we all know, birthed the Proletariat or the Collective Matter. The evolution of the slave has taken to labour and though they are the labour that creates the Motion. Their increase in education and skill as it relates to said labour, gives them at least half of the motion, starting out. 

If we take that into account, to reflect Laissez-faire, we get:

 

I(M+SV1/2C)+I(Edm+L1/2C)=C

 

Now, this equation is Laissez-faire in formula. of course the most telling variable about how this equation works is social darwinist style competition and growth. what I mean is, Capitalism has 1 goal, Profit and that reflects Capital which when stripped philosophically, Is indeed motion. since it's established that motion is dictated by matter....with the birth of the educated and more liberated Proletariat as opposed to its former use as property [serfs, peasants and slaves were essentially property to a king or a lord and didn't have markets] has more control of its motion. This was true at the beginning of Capitalism because it was a Big-bang-like-arrival and Markets were at its initial core with the former rich in the previous monarchs were grabbing ahold of these resources since there was an anarchist style freedom. When the dust settled and markets were established, so was the line drawn between motion of proletariat  and the capitalist. 

 

The Competition that was driven post market creation is nothing more at its core than a survival of the fittest mode between those who have the wealth trying to top others with wealth with no give to the labour force and as Keynes realized, was completely unstable since the limits of Laissez-faire were very restricted and in long term, would peak and the needs of the growing m would end up causing a much needed evolution of Capitalism to survive. 

 

This leads to Keynesian capitalism. Adam Smith was progressive as he recognized labour drove wealth but failed when he maintained the notion that government absence would maintain unlimited progress. As we saw in all its examples, the concentration of capital under Laissez-faire sputtered out and led to inevitable crisis since the poor and labour force suffered while the market drivers sat fat. The Great depression is the result in America. 

 

Keynesian economics played a part with the introduction of Government regulation and intervention of Capital affairs and was the most crucial evolution in capitalism. As Vladimir Ilyich Lenin held, Capitalism begins its decay and the next step is that of fascism. 

 

I(M+SV1/2C)+I(Edm+L1/2C)=C

Being the equation to reflect Laissez-faire. 

How would this look with Its peaked  in its concentration and the turn to Fascism,  or the evolution from Laissez-faire to Keynesianism? 

 

in its peak of Laissez-faire 

I(M+SV3/4C-Edm+L1/4C)=C 

[Note: I give 3/4 only based on the 1/4 being maintained by the Proletariat which is the consumer] 

 

Keynesian economics however, we address the basis being in government intervention of the use of Capital to kind of band aid the decay. Essentially, the Invisible hand becomes, real and material...

It's a short term economic fix that relies on public works projects,  nationalized industry and allows private ownership of the means of production but all bidding is at the hands of the State. (Essentially merged but the M still has dominant place in the development) 

 

But if we take the peak of Laissez-faire and adapt to it the Keynesian and fascist economics. 

GM(SVC3/4-Edm+LC)=C

 

Now with Fascism being a short term economic "fix" and eventual Monopoly-ran (imperialism)  country based on homeland military conquest, the natural move for the Dictating Matter is world motion. 

 

[Note: This being the natural result of capitalism, Fascism is just a national stage of decayed Laissez-faire and when profits become Stagnant, the only thing to do is start a world conquest, expanding motion on a world scale and expanding the majority matter.]

 

Now as I've mentioned before, Motion is the whole and there is only that much, what I described throughout however was just a build on a national level so C, is really 1/2-2/3C due to (In America's case as the example) half of the world's capital runs through them. Now, what would imperialism look like in formula? Well, that's a tad complex for as we see, the formulas have gradually increased so I'll separate this formula as it pertains to the national and international level.

 

First, let's look at what Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said in regards to it as there were 5 characteristics:

"(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."

 

So in terms of matter and motion, we can tell that M is monopolized but carries double the power as it turns international but it's separated between the banks and corporations  (.01% and 1% respectively) so it'd be M1+M2, the Government is as merged but since capital in imperialism belongs to M1 and M2 (at its highest peak, about 90% but for now we maintain 65%), the government is more the figurehead to maintain the "democratic" order and basically being a pathetic extension of the Matter so unlike fascism, it's not so much a shared power since monopolies are the power. 

 

Another feature needed would be Military conquest, Mil as the variable, now in fascism and capitalism, military is needed but in different capacity. In capitalism, military is needed against foreign threats and to be a representation of one's power. In fascism, as we know from history,  military becomes the police, as borders shut down and power centralized. Now imperialism, Military is more of a commodity and representative of power that M1 and 2 have. As monopolies maintain power, they start taking control of motion held by others [Note: to explain, Fascism is a national form of capitalism. What I explained above is when Capital peaks in that nation, it's needed to spread. So C is really NC+IC.] Now, What about the majority matter (m)? we are aware that they are a Submissive force but in regards to the national and international level, they are 2 different types of force, but we will address it later, for now how would that look in the imperialist formula? 

 

Well from all we gathered thus far

from Fascism (GM(SVC3/4-Edm+LC)=C) we would need to make drastic changes so at its begin stage Imperialism would look like:

Mon (2/3 M1+M2+Sv)+Mil+[over government]+ExL(1/3m1+m2-Ed)=IC+NC

 

Now, as we gaze upon this formula we can gather that this is about where we stand in current history. The Capitalists are achieving Capital by the masses and America is that standard. We are on pace to see capitalism maintain 90-10% control of m. The positive in this however, is one special variable as it pertains to Engels quote at the top and that is Revolution (R) which is defined by Class consciousness, Education and sheer numbers. 

 

In part 2, I will be taking the imperialist formula and show how Motion really gets sparked by its natural force and leads to the awakening of m and spark the move to the final formula in this solving of matter and motion, Communism or C=Edm=Com. 

 

Thank you, 

Comrade Staricka