Scenario 1999: “Tournament” and “Market”: National Institutions or Civil Societies?

In Liberal Capitalist ideological discourse, it is oftentimes understood that the Market represents more than a mechanism to facilitate the allocations of resources, manpower, Kapital and Schuld. It also embodies a collection of Private Citizens competing for the greater Quantity of Kapital for the least Quantity of Schuld. We find this trend most apparent in the so-called “labor market” or “job market.” The Incentives of Supply and Demand coordinate the Prices of goods and services as well as “Commodities.” Kapital is spent for those items; in the absence of Kapital, Schuld is used instead.

While it is maintained in the literature that the Market emerged spontaneously, there are also other occasions where Parliament was responsible for establishing the Market and ensuring its continued existence. The phenomenon is not so much of whether the Market is allowed to operate with the least interference from the Parliament or whether Parliament is supposed to be intervening in the Market whenever it fails. From the standpoint of the Work-Standard, however, this is where the shared paradigm between Production for Profit and Production for Utility emerges. It is also here where the Fractional-Reserve Banking System as well as the concepts of Common and Private Properties-as-Wealth become relevant.

The general idea behind the Market among Liberal Capitalists is it provides the basis in which people exchange items for Kapital or Schuld. Civil Society engages in the practice in order to acquire whatever it needs. “Economic growth” and “wealth creation,” according to the Liberal Capitalists, stem from the production and consumption of goods and services as well as the Commodities used to create them. Said “production and consumption” comes from the physical exchanges that Civil Society does in the form of transactional sales. As the number of Markets grows to encompass the entirety of economic life, the concept of the Market/Mixed Economy becomes tenable.

Therein lies one of the important differences between the Market and the Tournament. Are transactional sales the only source of economic growth and wealth creation? Is there some untapped source of wealth that cannot possibly be realized, much less contemplated, in the ideological discourse of Neoliberalism?  

The Liberal Capitalists do raise these questions, but never in the context of the Life-Energy which is required for the creations of Arbeit and Geld under the Work-Standard. Instead, the questions are addressed with regard to Privatization and Technology. As discussed previously in The Third Place (1st Ed.) and Work-Standard Accounting Practices (1st Ed.) to a lesser extent, the Liberal Capitalists are always looking for more ways in which Civil Society engages in Kapital and Schuld as parts of economic life. The role of Privatization is demonstrative of an idea established across certain Entries of The Third Place (1st Ed.) wherein Civil Society, unlike the Totality, can splinter itself into a multitude of lesser Civil Societies.

Market Vectors of Economic Liberalization

In economic life, this Author has identified about five notable Market Vectors of Economic Liberalization. The presence of a legitimate Market (as opposed to the Shadow Economy or Informal Economy, the “Black Markets” and “Gray Markets” respectively) can oversee the transitions between Production for Utility and Production for Profit. Liberal Capitalists prefer economic life to be geared toward Production for Profit by default, deferring to Production for Utility only when the Market becomes incapable of creating Kapital and Schuld, is beset upon by “foreign Markets,” and in circumstances where it Liberal Capitalists must strike compromises with the metaphysical State of Total Mobilization in order to preserve their State of Natural Rights from the Enlightenment. Bluntly put, the transition from Production for Utility to Production for Profit refers to the legal transferring of economic governance from Parliament to the Market/Mixed Economy. The technical used in the literature are “Corporatization,” “Demutualization,” “Marketization,” “Public-Private Partnerships,” and of course “Privatization.”

Corporatization involves transferring an Economic Organization, like a State-Owned Enterprise, from Parliament to a Public Corporation that it has some discernible control over. A comparable trend in the Market/Mixed Economy is Demutualization, where smaller Economic Organizations such as Cooperatives are transferred away from the personnel governing them to the Financial Markets and the broader Market/Mixed Economy. When the Market/Mixed Economy and Financial Markets gain enough influence over an Economic Organization, the next logical step is Marketization. Here, the Incentives of Supply and Demand are given greater emphasis as Parliament’s role within the activities of an Economic Organization are diminished in favor of the Market/Mixed Economy. Should the Market/Mixed Economy gain even more influence over an Economic Organization, a Public-Private Partnership (P3) becomes entertainable.

The key attributes associated with a Public-Private Partnership concern the creation, financing, establishment, ownership, operation, and maintenance of an Economic Organization. In Production for Utility, Parliament (as the “Public Sector”) is responsible for some combination of those attributes, whereas the Market/Mixed Economy (as the “Private Sector”) oversees other attributes not covered by Parliament. The ownership attribute determines whether Parliament or the Market/Mixed Economy will control a particular Economic Organization. Will ownership be transferred to the Market/Mixed Economy will the affected Economic Organization remain under Parliament’s control? If so, will the Market/Mixed Economy gain full control or will it be a temporary arrangement?  

Those questions in turn determine whether an Economic Organization will be fully privatized or remain governed by Parliament. Should Parliament transfer complete control of an Economic Organization to the Market/Mixed Economy, the process of Privatization has been completed. The affected Economic Organization will thereby operate on Production for Profit, relying on Kapital Accumulation from transactional sales, loans provided by the Fractional-Reserve Banking System, and LCFIs (Liberal Capitalist Financial Instruments) purchased by investors at the Financial Markets. 

By contrast, the transition from Production for Profit to Production for Utility involves the act of transferring ownership away from the Market/Mixed Economy and toward Parliament. The P3 concept in Neoliberalism provides a suitable model for how an Economic Organization undergoes that transition. Since Privatization and P3s also exist in Production for Utility as they do in Production for Profit, there should be opposites for Marketization, Demutualization, and Corporatization. Their equivalents would have to be “Subsidization,” “Mutualization,” and “Nationalization.” Those three are indicative of varying degrees of ownership transitioning away from the Market/Mixed Economy to the Parliament within the framework of Kapital and Schuld, the Fractional-Reserve Banking System, and even the Incentives of Supply and Demand in certain cases.

The opposing model of Economic Organization in The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.) involves governance being split between “State Sector” and “Social Sector.” The most significant distinction is that governance was not determined by mere possession but by their position in relation to the overall ability to create Arbeit and Geld. The more capable an Economic Organization becomes at contributing Arbeit and Geld to the Life-Energy Reserve, the more likely it will become attain the next higher Social Rank. This can be discerned by their increased size and composition, diversification of economic activities, and delegation over smaller Economic Organization among the lower Social Ranks. This resulted in the proposal of different methods of governing large Economic Organizations in The Third Place (1st Ed.), such as Codetermination, Worker’s Self-Management, and Joint-Ownership. Economic Organizations with very high Social Ranks will eventually be brought under the governance of the Council State, whereas smaller ones can be overseen by a Guild. These arrangements are made possible due to the distinct characteristics of Council Democracy. Economic life cannot be completely separated from political life and vice versa.

The power to participate in the political process from the workspace also implies the power of the personnel of an Economic Organization to vote on internal issues. For instance, if the personnel could vote for their Delegates, they should also be able to vote against the dissolution of their Enterprise. If they can negotiate with the State Commissariats to determine the Value of their Arbeit and the Price in Geld, they should also be able to coordinate their activities with one or more Enterprises in their own respective Industry through some form of cooperation and competition.

The five-tier model of Economic Organizations outlined in The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.) could be defined as “Social Administration,” “Social Governance,” “National-Socialization,” “State Governance,” and “State Administration,” all of which can be formatted in the Social Ranking System employed by the Tournament. Each corresponds to PDEs, POEs, NSEs, SOEs, and SAEs respectively.

A more complex rendition appears towards the end of that Treatise concerning the distinct characteristics of American Federalism. That particular model had up to thirteen types of Enterprises split into three Tiers for the Municipal, State, and Federal Governments. The Americanized Social Ranking System among Economic Organizations would follow six categories, with two categories pertaining to each Tier: “Socialization” and “Municipalization”; “Regionalization” and “State-Socialization”; “National-Socialization” and “Federalization.”  

We can expect similar arrangements to also be occurring in the other four major economics of Scenario 1999. In a world order where the economic growth of nations is based on their abilities to create Arbeit and Geld, the Germanic, Soviet, Chinese, and Imperial Japanese economies would have their own distinct vectors for Economic Organization. Assuming every Economic Organization is in fact an Enterprise within a given Industry, what forms will they take if not “Public” or “Private?”

Fortunately, The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.) and The Third Place (1st Ed.) also provided some indications on the number of variations in which the socioeconomic governance of Economic Organizations may assume.

Tournament Vectors of Economic Socialization

In Production for Dasein, the transferring of economic governance for any Economic Organization, regardless of its size, composition, capabilities, and activities, takes on a very different definition for the State and the Totality. To transfer an Economic Organization from the State to the Totality vis-à-vis the Tournament does not actually signify Economic Liberalization, any more than transferring an Economic Organization from the Totality to the State is not the only definition of Economic Socialization. The economic activities of the State and Totality will still be residing among the Domains of the Work-World, which consists of every Industry, Enterprise and Profession wielding Productive Properties-as-Power to contribute Arbeit and Geld to the Life-Energy Reserve. Additionally, the process in which the transferring of economic governance occurs may be dependent on whether the nation in question happens to have a Council State (for Socialists) or a Corporate State (for Corporatists). While Socialists and Corporatists have different ideas on how to govern a national economy, the process remains identical if both happen to be relying on Sociable Currencies pegged to the Work-Standard.   

Furthermore, in a functioning Council Democracy, all personnel of an affected Economic Organization shall enjoy the Legal Right to decide on whether they should transfer governance of their Economic Organization to another Economic Organization within the Tournament or the State itself. They must vote on whether to consent to this decision or not. Should a majority vote be secured, the Economic Organization will be brought under the governance of either another Economic Organization, the State, or both. This Legal Right is to be superseded by the Legal Duty of allowing either or both assume governance of their activities if their Economic Organization fails to perform its most basic functions. Such a Legal Duty has been mentioned in discussions of Council Democracy in The Third Place (1st Ed.).

Based on information covered in The Work-Standard (2nd Ed.), The Third Place (1st Ed.), and Work-Standard Accounting Practices (1st Ed.), who are the prospective candidates to take over another Economic Organization within the Tournament of a Vocational Civil Service (VCS) Planned/Command Economy? The Worksheet of Sociable Accounts (WSA) established in the latter treatise comes in handy here. Out of the seven primary accounts employed in WSA, only four of them are needed to grasp the Tournament Vectors of Economic Socialization. Those are the State Account, Communion Account, Social Account, and Household Account.

  1. The State Account consists of the Council or Corporate State, Regional and Municipal Governments, the Student Government, and the Military-Industrial Complex.
  2. The Communion Account features the various Economic Organizations of the Tournament. Shopping Citadels and Shopping Arenas, Community-Organized Guilds, PDEs, POEs, NSEs, Subsidiaries, Consortiums and Industrial Concerns, SOEs and SAEs.
  3. The Social Account is for the Totality. Political Parties, Religious Congregations, People’s Communities, Social Forums on the National Intranet, and so forth. All of them represent the social side of economic life.
  4. The Household Account represents the Families and the Self proper.

Given these four accounts, not to mention barring any possible economic incompetence and underperformance, there is now a well-defined list of potential candidates. The State, the SSE, the Military-Industrial Complex, Regional and Municipal Governments, Political Parties, Religious Congregations, People’s Communities, other Economic Organizations, and the Social Forums of the National Intranet are all viable applicants. Even here, the Tournament functions akin to a national institution of the VCS Economy. Its relation to the VCS Economy is comparable to the similar relationship that the State Commissariats and the Kontore (Financial Offices) have with the Reciprocal-Reserve Banking System.   

In a political, economic, financial, social and cultural order where the pursuit of Meaningful Work is the purpose of Life itself and where Democracy itself begins at the workspace instead of a polling booth, every part of the Totality in search of other sources of Arbeit and Geld will find those sources. The Totality must collaborate with the State to create those sources. Like the State, the Totality cannot afford to be complacent. The burden of economic governance falls on both Totality and the State instead of the Tournament. The Tournament, like the Social Ranking System, the State Commissariats, or the Kontore, are just means of ensuring that the pursuit of Meaningful Work in the State of Total Mobilization will be upheld.     

Even so, the fourth account, the Household Accounts, does raise an important issue regarding the role of Households, the Family and the Self, because Neoliberalism also places too much emphasis on the Household (and by extension the Family and the Self). Not because Neoliberalism is inclined to uphold family values, but specifically because it deems the Household and Family as extension of the Self, which must fend for itself in two Civil Societies, the actual one that Parliament governs and the less one that Market governs vis-à-vis the Market/Mixed Economy and the Fractional-Reserve Banking System.  

The Family in Neoliberalism is a lopsided depiction where it exists both independently of and mutually against Civil Society and Parliament. Both Civil Society and Parliament expect the Family to provide for things that Civil Society and Parliament are supposed to be providing. This trend appears in two forms, both of which were technically alluded to in the last three Treatises.

On the one hand, we find this trend to be most pronounced in the operations of massive Economic Organizations or collections of large Economic Organization under the governance of one Household. On the other hand, is it too much of a coincide that, even if there are Families possessing Kapital worth hundreds and hundreds of thousands of US Dollars, they are still “living paycheck to paycheck?” The question presented by Neoliberalism is two-fold.

Can the Household, the Family and the Self, really fit to run large Economic Organizations on their own without ever interacting with Civil Society and Parliament? Is the Household supposed to be providing things that would normally be the prerogatives of Civil Society and Parliament?     

The former should be obvious. It is one matter for a Household to run and operate their own PDE, POE, Cooperative or Guild. It is an entirely different issue altogether for them to be running and operating an Economic Organization as large as an SOE or an SAE. Meanwhile, under the Work-Standard, a Household could run and operate low or mid-ranking Economic Organization as long as they do not interfere with the political motions of Council Democracy and contributions of Arbeit and Geld to the Life-Energy Reserve. Should a Household remain in control of an Economic Organization and it happens to become an SOE or SAE, their economic governance will be brought under the oversight of the State Council as opposed to the Regional and Municipal Governments.  

The latter, despite tying in to the former, also implies an ideal from the State of Natural Rights. This is the idea that anyone, by attaining a high enough Quantity of Kapital and minimizing their Quantity of Schuld, can attain the status of nobility as the nouveau riche. Unfortunately, neither the State of Total Mobilization nor the Social Ranking System of the Work-Standard operates on Kapital and Schuld. It operates meritocratically on Arbeit and Geld. The true aristocracy in the State of Total Mobilization are the ones who contribute the most Arbeit and Geld. The Tournament is not the only national institution where they can be found, such as the SSE, the Council State, and even the National Intranet.  

Categories: Digital Realm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 reply


  1. Revision (1 May 2023) – The Fourth Estate

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: