The Social Ranking System dares to envisage the hierarchical structures of the Socialist Nation along the lines of merit, achievement and the Quality of Arbeit of each Self’s Vocation. As discussed earlier in Section One, everyone in the Totality begins with the lowest Social Rank once they enter secondary school. From there, everyone strives to reach the next higher Social Rank, in addition to receiving medals, awards, letters of commendation and even Prizes from the Council State. This is a lifelong endeavor, so everyone has a chance to attain their next Social Rank will be able to do so long after graduating from secondary school. The Social Ranking System’s Social Ranks are universal across every Profession among the Domains of the Work-World. Anyone switching Professions or working in more than one will still have the same Social Rank regardless.
The obvious advantage of the Social Ranking System is that it deters all notions of modeling these hierarchical structures along the lines of wealth and blood. One could be wealthy or nobility, but they will always be outranked by somebody with a higher Social Rank than them. This rule applies more so if the person outranking them happens to be a poor or well-to-do commoner. Another advantage is that it simultaneously achieves the seemingly opposing aims of Corporatism and Pure Socialism, which is the question of “Class Collaboration” or “Class Struggle.” Both aims are applicable to the Self, Totality, and State trifecta from Prussianism and Socialism and introduced as far back as The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.). For the sake of ascertaining the wealthy’s social interactions with young people, how are both concepts applicable to the Social Ranking System?
Class Collaboration or Class Struggle?
The general premise of Class Collaboration is that pitting the wealthy against the poor is harmful to the nation and promotes greater division among the Totality. Most proponents, from certain Social-Democrats espousing Tripartism (Read: “Social Corporatism”) to real Fascists advocating “State Corporatism,” believe that peoples of different classes should seek compromise and work together toward commonly-shared goals through the State. With that idea in mind, Corporatism envisages a “Corporate State” presiding over “Organized Labor” and the “Business Community.” Unlike the Fascists, it has become mundane in the decades since the Death of Bretton Woods for Social-Democrats to supplant “Organized Labor” with the Fractional-Reserve Banking System in their version of Corporatism. The “Business Community” in that context implies a Tripartite of Parliament, the Market/Mixed Economy, and the Fractional-Reserve Banking System. And unlike the special cases of the Soviets, PRC, Eastern Bloc countries and even the German Reich (all of which were missing some vital components here and there), the dynamics of Production for Utility are more readily apparent in Social-Democratic Tripartism.
In Corporatism, Class Collaboration would entail the Totality being split into Organized Labor and the Business Community, leaving the Self as a separate entity. The Self, like the State, exists between these two halves of the Totality insofar as the Self acts akin to an intermediate between those two halves. This Self in particular may be a member of Organized Labor and supportive of the Business Community, or they could be a member of the Business Community and sympathetic to the concerns of Organized Labor. Whichever the case may be, the Totality’s metaphysics operates differently than what occurs in the Class Struggle.
In Pure Socialism, the Class Struggle can be framed along the lines of the “Scientific/Artistic Socialism Distinction,” where the definitions fall under one of two specific interpretations. The most well-known and well-understood is the traditional definition promulgated from Scientific Socialism according to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, where the “Bourgeoisie” are locked in permanent, uncompromising conflict with the “Proletariat.” The Bourgeoisie are generally understood by its adherents as being those who create and own Kapital and Schuld as part of Production for Profit, what Marx and Engels referred to as the “Capitalist Mode of Production.” The Proletariat by contrast are the lower working classes who must earn Kapital and reap Schuld in order to get by in Production for Profit and who in turn must act as a proponent of Production for Utility.
Outside of Scientific Socialism, most Artistic Socialisms rely on their own interpretations of the Class Struggle. Religion-oriented Socialisms define theirs between adherents and non-believers (i.e. Mormons and non-Mormons, Muslims and Kafir, Jews and Gentiles, etc.). Nation-oriented Socialisms frame theirs as one between nationals and foreigners or, in the case of National Bolshevism, opposing alliances of nations. Environment-oriented Socialisms outline theirs in terms of the ecological interactions between humanity and nature. A State Socialism is focused more on State and non-State entities. Exceptional ones like Pan-Germanic Socialism and Pan-Arabic Socialism are fixated on a geographical region of nations sharing the same ethnic and cultural ties (the German-speaking world and Arabic-speaking world respectively) and those which do not originate anywhere within those spatial boundaries. And in the context of the ideology promoted in The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.), Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism, it is a multifaceted Class Struggle pitting Hamiltonian Federalism (the Federalism of Alexander Hamilton) and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism (the Democratic-Republicanism of Thomas Jefferson).
Although the Scientific and Artistic variants of Pure Socialism have their own interpretations of the Class Struggle, they all share the same metaphysical logic and express them differently. The notion of success in the Class Struggle rests firmly on the triumph of Pure Socialism in redefining the parameters of social interactions between the State, Totality, and Self. In Scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels insisted that its conclusion of the Class Struggle will occur during the advent of a third Mode of Production, what they referred to as “Communism,” superseding the first and second ones.
For the Artistic Socialisms, their Class Struggles are equally grand and involve a revolutionization of the non-economic social relations in how the State, Totality and Self conduct themselves within their nation and around the world. In Environmentalist conceptions of Pure Socialism, it is the actualized equilibrium between humanity and nature. In Pan-Germanic Socialism or Pan-Arabic Socialism, it is the unification of the German-speaking world or the Arabic-speaking world into a single unified nation. For Mormon Socialism, that is the realization of a Mormon America; for Jewish Socialism, the creation and preservation of the State of Israel; for Islamic Socialism, the preservation of Islamic teachings and practices and their integration into the State of Total Mobilization. And in Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism’s case, the resurrection of the old Federalist Party and the heralding of a entirely new conception of the United States of America called the “Federalist American Union.”
The question to be addressed here is not whether Class Collaboration is a preferable alternative to the Class Struggle or whether there can only be one universal definition of the Class Struggle. On the contrary, it is far more important to ascertain whether there are ethical, moral, philosophical, theoretical, and political contexts to apply aspects of both Class Collaboration and Class Struggle in the Social Ranking System of the Socialist Nation from The Work-Standard. This Author is certain that are contexts for either Class Collaboration or Class Struggle as well as others where it is necessary to apply aspects of both. The social relations between the wealthy and young people, for the purposes of what I am about discuss, will fall under the context of the latter category.
Kontor Office VI
The wealthy can and should be investing their Actual Geld in the Total Productive Potential (TPP) of the Socialist Nation. The VCS Economy and the Council State were the two examples discussed earlier in Section Three. But at the same time, they should also not refrain from investing wealth into the capabilities of the Socialist Student Economy (SSE) and the leadership of the Student Government. Compared to the Student Economy that is characteristic of most Liberal Capitalist regimes, the OECD-Type Student Economy, the conception of what constitutes as “Scholarships,” “Apprenticeships,” and “Sponsorships” will change as part of Production for Dasein.
In the SSE, the Intent of a Scholarship will not be to fund the recipient’s educational costs but to act as National-Socialized Financial Instruments (NSFIs) for Students interested in pursuing research and development projects and other ventures. There may be proposals and activities which may require additional funding and resources beyond what can be provided by the Council State or produced by the SSE. It might involve the SSE conducting deals with the Student Economies of foreign nations under the terms of a Real Trade Agreement (RTA). And it can also entail facilitating any large-scale allocation of Arbeit, Geld and Equipmentalities which, though outside the immediate purview of the Council State, is still under the oversight of the Council State’s Ministry of Education. With Scholarships serving as an NSFI facilitating those types of endeavors, their issuance will be conducted by Office VI (“Priority Requisition”) of the Kontor.
The Kontor’s Office VI is split into four subbranches known as “Group A,” “Group B,” “Group C,” and “Group D”. If I had to provide names for all four in terms of their intended functions, it would be “Non-State Research and Development,” “Technical Patents and Field Prototype Evaluations,” “Intellectual Property and Mass Communications,” and “Non-State Acquisitions and Strategic Investments.” The one that is of relevance to the aforementioned Scholarships, Apprenticeships, and Scholarships is under the jurisdiction of Group D.
Group D includes separate contingents of Economic Planners and Inspectors alongside the usual financial practitioners and investors. Its overarching purpose in conjunction with the rest of Office VI is to facilitate the secondary allocations of Arbeit, Geld, and Equipmentalities to the SSE, VCS Economy, Reciprocal-Reserve Banking System, Council State or National Intranet. There are the primary allocations of those same three items by the Council State as part of distributing the State Budget, and then there are those provided by the Totality and Self through Group D. Whatever Actual Geld and Equipmentalities that the wealthy are willing to devote to the SSE shall be processed by Group D and sent to the Student Government for further allocation.
Scholarships function as the NSFI for Students who need Arbeit, Geld and Equipmentalities for their official ventures as part of the SSE. An Apprenticeship functions in a similar manner except it applies to their Vocation as part of a Profession in an Enterprise in the SSE or the VCS Economy. The same can be said for the Sponsorship being the equivalent for establishing new Enterprises for either the SSE or the VCS Economy. Eligibility for all three depends on the Social Rank of the recipient. The Service Fee will be charged to the recipient instead of the wealthy. Alternatively, the Council State may confer Scholarships, Apprenticeships, or Sponsorships to Students as Prizes.
Informal Economy: Fundraising and Donation Drives
The issue of integrating important Informal Economy activities like fundraising and donation drives will also be overseen by Group D of Office VI. In the LER (Life-Energization Reciprocity) Process, economic activities which contribute Arbeit and generate Geld are registered in the Life-Energy Reserve and added to the Total Productive Potential (TPP). The Arbeit and Geld yielded from fundraisers and donation drives, however, are voluntary acts of charity to those in need. Yes, people who participate in such activities do create Arbeit and Geld as part of the LER Process, and they will be added to the TPP. What is different from most conventional activities under the Work-Standard is where they are supposed to appear in the TPP equation.
Recall the two sets of equations for TPP and the State Budget:
TPP = (State Budget + People’s Geld) + (RTEP + RTFP) + (NSFIs + State Investments)
TPP = TPP Account + LER Accounts + SI-EF Accounts
State Budget = State Revenue – State Expense
The TPP value is the sum of all Geld in the State Budget and the personal accounts of the Totality and Self, the Arbeit of RTEP (Real Total Economic Potential) and Geld of RTFP (Real Total Financial Potential), and the Arbeit and Geld from NSFIs and State Investments like tax revenue.
The Arbeit and Geld created from donation drives and fundraisers will not be accounted for in the LER Accounts or the SI-EF Accounts. Instead, they will be appearing in the State Budget or the People’s Geld, depending on the intended beneficiaries of those endeavors. If the beneficiary is a specific member of the SSE or the VCS Economy, then it will be deducted from the State Budget as a State Expense. If the beneficiary is a known segment of the Totality, it is added to the People’s Geld. However, if the beneficiary happens to be somebody from outside the Socialist Nation, it will be added toward “Developmental Aid’ under the “Mobilization (Foreign Spending)” of the “Foreign Accounts” as part of Command-Obedience Account Bookkeeping.
I discussed this matter before in The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.) as part of an Entry entitled “Foreign Accounts for Inflowing Arbeit, Outflowing Geld.” What I should mention is that even though the Arbeit and Geld is going be transferred to foreign beneficiaries, the fact that it had once existed in the LER Process of the Socialist Nation should still be added toward the final TPP value regardless. It is likewise for other forms of spending in the Foreign Accounts.
Categories: Third Place