Decommodification of the systemic social accounting system

Post your research in political economy, share ideas and workshop your empirical work.

Moderator: sanha926

Decommodification of the systemic social accounting system

Postby raymondaitken » Mon May 15, 2017 4:23 pm

Here below, is an email containing some questions and comments that I sent to Professor Nitzan, in response to a paper by Joseph Baines.*

I am posting my email to this Critical Mass forum, in order to engage in a collaborative dialogue with CasP researchers, with a view to co-authoring one or more working papers on the topic of a systemic social accounting system, whose entries are not commodified (through the privatisation of the credit commons), but instead such accounting entries remain pure information about the notarisation and accounting of economic rights (credit as purchasing power), which arise from and are counterpartied by self-cancelling production obligations (debt).

The aim is an exodus of the social accounting system (i.e. banking system) from the thrall of so called financial "markets", and the decentralisation of its inherent socio-political power to individual users.
Thank you Professor Nitzan for your invitation, and also to James for activating my membership of this forum.

* Accumulating through Food Crisis? Farmers, Commodity Traders and the Distributional Politics of Financialization, by Joseph Baines (2017) -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Raymond Aitken <>
Date: 14 May 2017 at 18:19
Subject: Re: "Accumulating through Food Crisis?" Joseph Baines on who gains from volatile food prices
To: Jonathan Nitzan <>

Dear Professor Nitzan,

Thank you for sending me this paper by Joseph Baines.
Just reading it is an education in innovative research and how to present it as a scientific paper.

I just wanted to share an issue exposed in Joseph's paper[1], which could open a new avenue of research, regarding the institutionalisation of differential power relations, through the epistemology, architecture and operation of the systemic "capitalist accounting" system (banking system). You had already outlined this avenue of research trajectory in 2015[2]. My interest is the identification of a replacement social accounting system which is not anchored in financial markets.

My question is:

What would have happened if Bretton Woods had defined the international monetary unit of account as a pure abstract measurement, and referenced it to something objective and invariable[3]?

Instead it fixed it to gold bullion as a commodity, whose value changed according market dynamics of supply and demand. This commodification of the monetary unit of account is of course how all "currencies" have been treated.
Why cannot the monetary accounting unit function like other units of measure (weight, length, etc)? Then economic exchanges between different monetary jurisdictions (countries) could be accounted for through direct arithmetical conversion between monetary units of account, instead of treating these units as if they were commodities to be transferred physically between the warehousing network of central banks?

It seems to me that gold bullion is the apex fetish, which maintains the hierarchical power structure of capitalist monetary accounting. Here is a paper by Professor Perry Mehrling[4][5], which indirectly supports this contention.


[1] page 9: "As a consequence of the demise of the post-war monetary order [collapse of the Bretton Woods system], agricultural prices became unmoored from the fixed dollar-gold anchor, and administered prices were no longer considered viable at a domestic level."

[2] The CasP Project: Past, Present, Future - Trajectory Seven: Accounting (2015) - ... _wpcap.pdf

[3] Philip Howard, in the video presentation with Joseph mentioned a very interesting fact: "the size of our stomachs is limited, there is only so much food we can eat and drink" - This means that the monetary unit of account could be referenced to the daily food-energy requirement of a human being, say 1,200 joules. Purchasing power parity between different country monetary jurisdictions would then be based on their bio-regional capacity and potential to provision their populations with sufficient food-energy, in terms of the high food energy staples (wheat, rice, corn, millet, potato, cassava, etc). Monetised production credit (finance) would become a de-commodifed purchasing right, counterpartied by a real production obligation (self-cancelling debt); and with such economic rights and obligations being notarised and discharged (cleared), within an equitable social accounting system, where the social power of the debt-credit nexus of money is decentralised, so that purchasing power becomes a direct democracy voting system of universal suffrage.

[4] Mehrling P(2009), Natural Hierarchy of Money - ... -Money.pdf

[5] Here also is a video presentation about the hierarchy of money by Professor Perry Mehrling - ... -of-money/
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:58 pm
Location: Andalucia, Spain

Re: Decommodification of the systemic social accounting syst

Postby Jonathan Nitzan » Tue May 16, 2017 8:18 pm


I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, so let me respond by making two broad statements followed by a question of my own.

1. The price of an individual commodity is a quantitative social convention. A society can price its commodities based on utility, labour time, energy contents, dictatorial decree, autonomous planning, or anything else. It can also pretend to use one pricing system (for instance, utility) while in effect employing another (for example, power). Commodity prices are meaningful relative to each other.

2. The amount of money in the system – regardless of whether this money is counted in physical entities such as ounces of gold or pure symbols such as bank credit – is also a social convention. It depends on what people accept and/or forced to use as money. The quantity of money in the system is relevant in relationship to the total value of commodities (=quantities X prices, assuming the quantities can be measured).

3. How is the denomination of money and prices in joules more objective than their denomination in utils or labour time? How can the joule contents of commodities be determined (for instance, what is the joule content of an aspirin, a software program or a medical service)? What is the advantage of forcing a narrow energy-based pricing system over open-ended, democratic pricing, based on autonomous cooperation?
Jonathan Nitzan
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Decommodification of the systemic social accounting syst

Postby raymondaitken » Wed May 17, 2017 6:31 pm

Thanks for your contextual statements and challenging questions Professor Nitzan.

Yes, my initial question and statements are confusing, because I did not make it clear that I am speaking from another paradigm, where monetary accounting entries do not represent/symbolise commodities (whether real or fictional); but instead they notarise social obligations (debt) and their counterparty rights (credit).
Obligations and the rights that arise from them are the complementary polar-relational aspects of the social relationship we call "power".

Another important premise of the paradigm that money is the accounting of economic rights and obligations (and not of commodities). Across the spectrum of schools of economic and monetary thought, there is one shared fallacy, that the origin and nature of money is as "a means of exchange". If we want to transform monetary accounting, so that the incumbent "capital as power mode" of political-economy dictatorship is transformed into a political-economy universal suffrage, we need to "re-search" this and other such unquestioned shared notions.

I hereby posit that:

the genesis of money is firstly as an enabler of specialised work within added-value production chains and networks, and only consequently as a means of economic exchange.

All human added-value chains begin with inputs that the members of the chain did not themselves produce (natural resources and cultural assets (legacy knowledge) as commons).

Let's take a very simple example of a "human added-value chain" for illustrative purposes:

1) Firstly, through his specialised work, the farmer produces the added-value of wheat, using the commons inputs of: (1) Nature (land, wheat seeds etc) and cultural assets (legacy knowledge in terms of farming technology and selective plant breeding).

2) Secondarily, the miller takes the output (harvested surplus wheat) of the farmer, and grinds it into the added-value output of flour.

3) Thirdly, the baker takes the output of the miller, and bakes it into a subsequent value-added output: bread.

Each member of this simple added-value production chain (farmer, miller, baker) is also networked to other provisioning added-value chains, which are embedded within a network of networks of specialised production (work/labour) and provisioning (exchange). In the context of this provisioning-production network (the economy), each one can obtain forms of specialised human added-value to satisfy both their personal needs (including of their dependents), as well as the inputs required for their specialised work (agricultural tools/equipment etc for the farmer; a milling technology/machine for the miller; and an oven plus mixing bowels etc for the baker).

So what induces/enables the farmer to transfer his wheat as an input for the miller, and likewise for the miller to transfer his added-value to the baker; and so on throughout the economic network of provisioning and specialised production?

It is the establishment of a social accounting[1] system, which notarises the specialised productive undertaking of each one as an obligation (debt), which is measured according to the added-value inputs necessary to their productive undertaking; and on this basis, counterparty rights, in the form of claims to the budgeted wherewithal are allocated to the notarised producer (the debtor), which thereby enables the notarised producer to appropriate all the inputs necessary to discharge their production undertaking/obligation (debt)[2]. These claims are "purchasing rights", which are unconditionally transferable (liquid); i.e. regarding who they can be transferred to, for the appropriation of whatever added-value, at a time and place advantageous to the holder.

Once the notarised producer (debtor) has produced the added-value that they self-obligated to create, that added-value is then transferred to others, as either production inputs or as final consumption, upon receipt of purchasing rights (credit), which is then used to proportionally clear (cancel) their notarised debt (production obligations). In this way, debt and credit are pure double-entry accounting entries, which always mutually sum to zero.

All human added-value is subject to what could be called "economic entropy". Food rots, structures deteriorate, technology/knowledge becomes obsolete, competition reduces the demand for stocks, etc. The specialised output that each one produces for the others, it cannot itself satisfy the wide-ranging needs of the producer and their dependants. The economic value of one's production arises through its transfer to others, in exchange of unconditionally transferable purchasing rights (credit).

The economic liquidity function of monetised credit arises from its unconditional transfer, which means it is a potential claim on any added-value produced anywhere, at anytime, within the added-value network that is the economy. This means that the allocation of monetised credit belongs to the economic community as a whole, and cannot be privatised by any member or group. The social accounting of economic obligations (debt) and counterparty rights (credit), can only be performed as a not-for-profit public service. This does not imply that social accounting (banking) should be a state monopoly, far better that it would be performed on a competitive basis by not-for-profit Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). The important thing is that the social accounting system is "owned" by its users, to whom its managers/administrators must incessantly be directly accountable.

Social accounting means that the "return on capital" claims of so called "investors" are untenable in the notarisation-allocation of new monetised credit for productive purposes. The "principle" in terms of Nature, including human creativity and the exponentially accumulative legacy of human culture, in terms of knowledge and anthropocenic enhancements to Nature (cultivated crops, domesticated animals, geoengineered infrastructures and , etc) are already given as a "gift". They cannot be appropriated as the private property by a class of "investors". Human life and its resourceful capacities are part of the gift of Creation. The reciprocal (monetised) economy will always be a subset of the gift economy, out of which it emerged, and within which it always remains inherently embedded. There was no such thing as a "barter economy" as the precursor to the reciprocal monetised economy.

Reciprocity within the social accounting system, between production obligations (debt) and counterparty purchasing rights, depend on an agreed unit of account that is objectively verifiable and inelastic.
When the unit of account is fallaciously construed as a commodity, it looses its function as a reliable unit of account for the measurement of reciprocity between production obligations (debt) and counterparty purchasing rights (credit).
Any commodity will always be subject to the laws of supply and demand, therefore its value will fluctuate according to "market" dynamics.
The term "financial market" is also an oxymoron, because unlike real economy markets, so called "financial markets" do not operate on the principle of reciprocity (all parties to a transaction gain), but instead "financial market" dynamics are a zero-sum game. Whenever someone gains in a financial market, one or more others loose by an inverse proportion (I suppose it could be called "negative reciprocity"!). The unreal economy of financial markets cannot exist within the paradigm of money as pure accounting entries notarising production obligations (debt) and counterparty purchasing rights (credit); and their transfer and final mutual clearing (cancelling). In the obligations-rights paradigm, debt is self-cancelling; whereas in the commodified debt-credit paradigm, debt self-generates at an exponential rate, until it implodes, because the real economy cannot convert enough nature and people into money that will cancel enough of the past accumulation and provide sufficient liquidity for continuing an accelerating rate of "infinite economic growth". It looks like the rate of "infinite economic growth", necessary to contain exponential debt accumulation, reached some kind of limit in the 1970s, perhaps due to increased oil-energy costs triggered by the 67 Arab-Israeli war.

True democracy depends on, and therefore upholds socio-economic equitability, which in turn depends on the "golden rule" of socio-economic reciprocity, which can only be verified and assured by the use of "honest scales" for the measurement of: weights, length, areas ... and an honest monetary unit of account. The fact that weights and other scales of measurement are fixed to some invariable agreed and verifiable reference does not make them "narrow" or "undemocratic". For example, different references are agreed in the jurisdictions of different polities (US and British pounds/gallons/inches/miles etc and French kilos/litres/centimetres/kilometres etc). Inches can be easily converted to centimetres, kilos to pounds and vice versa. In order to effect conversion between different jurisdictions, we don't accumulate kilos weights in order to exchange them for pound weights at a fixed or floating rate of exchange. The same is true for the monetary unit of account under the obligations-rights paradigm of money. How would this paradigm constrain open-ended democratic pricing based on autonomous cooperation within the real economy market? Certainly it would make the unreal economy of financial casino-markets redundant. But my contention if that an exodus from the tyranny of the accounting-fraud shell-game of financial markets is exactly what we need, and soon.

Some of the advantages of referencing the monetary unit of account to the daily requirement of food-energy for a human being are:

1) It is difficult to commodify the human food-energy requirement, as it is not a "thing" but a need, and it is a very inelastic measure: both too much or too little means illness and eventually death.

2) As mentioned above, economy arises as a result of the specialisation of work, giving rise to added-value chains and networks. The basic fuel of this economic activity is food. Sufficient provisioning of the population with healthy food is the foundation and maintainer of specialisation-diversity in the economy.

3) Defining the reference of the monetary unit of account in terms of 1,200 joules/day is a very open-ended way of facilitating autonomous cooperation within and between polities across the world. Each bio-region has different food provisioning potentials, relative to climate, geography and the range, productivity and store-ability of high-energy staple foods. Each bio-region/polity needs to maximise its food sovereignty as a stable foundation for its other economic activities. Doing so will also provide mutual food security in terms of surplus transfers to regions/polities struck by food shortages as a result of natural and other disasters. Every country can contribute within its own territory to contributing to the aggregate food requirement of its population, unlike gold, oil and other resources. This means the basic "cost of living" for each territory will be a function of the realisation of its food-sovereignty potential, which will influence the parity of monetary units of account between different territories, according to their indigenous food-provisioning cost of labour. Exchange rates between different bio-regions will not be determined by geopolitical manipulations in Forex markets, but on each polity's human development potential, relative to their given geographical and climate conditions.

In the obligations-rights paradigm, money no longer has a store of value function, because it is replaced by a "choice value"[3] function. The absence of store of value function also makes the corresponding fallacy of "medium of exchange" redundant. It is solely a unit of account. The "amount of money in the system" will be a function of the amount of real economy production that is being undertaken and notarised as self-cancelling debt, as the counterparty purchasing rights (credit) that people usually focus on as "money" will be equal to the amount of notarised production obligations (debt). Aggregate purchasing power will expand and contract in accordance with necessary economic activity, and not in accordance with the exponential voracity of financial market speculation based on permanent metastasising interest-bearing debt.

I fully agree that capitalism is a mode of [concealed] power, but for me it is an abuse of a social power inherent in social accounting, predicated on at least conceptual error, if not downright deception and fraud[4].
We need to decipher and expose this abuse of power, which is why I am interested in reviewing the "Hierarchy of Money" presentation by Professor Perry Mehrling.
If money is in reality a nexus of economic obligations (debt) and rights (credit), then is also inescapably a phenomenon of social power.
My contention is that the social power of money is decentralised and becomes a means of universal political enfranchisement under the obligations-rights paradigm.
The problem of power in the commodified social accounting system, arises because this paradigm is a distorted misrepresentation of monetised social accounting, which enables fraudulent social accountants (bankers) to illegitimately appropriate the inherent social power of monetised accounting rights and obligations, in an obfuscated and systematic way, through conceptual "sleights of mind".

You raise many other points and questions that deserve a response on my part, but I think lengthening my answer further at this stage will be counterproductive.
I appreciate your challenging my thinking, its the only way to sort out "the wheat from the chaff" - thanks.


[1] Social accounting: See "Banks As Social Accountants And Social Controllers: Credit and Crisis in Historical Perspective." by Bezemer, Dirk J (2009) - ... ntants.pdf

[2] Obligations (debt) and rights (credit) are also notarised by the use of balance-sheets, whose headings my better be expressed as obligations (liabilities) and rights (assets). See "Finance and Growth:
When Credit Helps, and When it Hinders", by Bezemer, Dirk J (no date) - ... -paper.pdf

[3] Choice value: See "Toward a General Theory of Credit and Money", by Mostafa Moini (2001) - ... 3_moni.pdf

[4] Deception and fraud by banks: See "Banks don’t take deposits. Banks don’t lend money.", by Professor Richard Werner (2017) - ... end-money/
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:58 pm
Location: Andalucia, Spain

part 2 of my response to Professor Nitzan

Postby raymondaitken » Thu May 18, 2017 3:28 pm

REFERENCE - Jonathan Nitzan » Tue May 16, 2017 8:18 pm:

i) "A society can price its commodities based on utility, labour time, energy contents, dictatorial decree, autonomous planning, or anything else."
ii) How can the joule contents of commodities be determined (for instance, what is the joule content of an aspirin, a software program or a medical service)?

Dear Professor Nitzan, I will now give an exploratory response to the above referenced extracts quoted from you.

1) What is a commodity and how is it priced?

Firstly I want to posit that financialised legal instruments are pseudo-commodities, and I therefore don't include them in considering how true commodities are priced. Under Higher Law[1][2], Justice cannot be turned into an income-generating "asset" by renting it out at a compounding rate of interest, in order for apex-power "market makers" to buy these "unlawful legal instruments"[3] at discount, and then resell them for primary arbitrage gains as "securities" in secondary pseudo-markets (rigged financial casinos), whereby these unlawful legal instruments are then subjected to secondary-level arbitrage, through a series of long and short selling cycles, predicated on "price" volatility generated by casino-insiders who rig/game the unreal economy of financial [pseudo]markets.

Real commodities are the specialised product of human work (labour) which are available for purchase in the real economy market.
Regarding their pricing, this is not solely a matter of "relativistic demand".

The first consideration is the "return" due to the human capital INVESTED[4] the work that produced the commodity; whether the commodity be in the form of a service or good (tangible or intangible). This return should be sufficient so that the individual can continue to invest their human capital in work (by provisioning their human needs and those of their dependants, plus furnishing their share of production wherewithal), as well as in developing their innate human capital further (through education etc).

Any real commodity comprises three components: (1) the added-value created by the investment through work of the individual's human capital; (2) the prior inputs of added value by others; and (3) the commonwealth of Natural and Cultural goods and services on which the existence of the added-value chain depends (raw materials; recycling-pollution abatement; ecological regeneration; transport infrastructures, education; healthcare; mutualised risk management (social and economic) law and order as human rights protection; social accounting system etc.
Therefore the price of the commodity must include:
(1) the return on human capital invested in the work that produced the final added-value of a given "finished" commodity;
(2) the return due to previous iterations of added-value as the commodity moved up the production chain;
(3) a contribution[5] to the maintenance-regeneration of the commonwealth-overhead Natural and Cultural factors of production, upon which the production and purchasing of the commodity would not be possible.
This approach to the pricing of real market commodities is in line with what is called "associative economics", where "an economic sector is managed by associations of business corporations (industry associations) and consumer associations [and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)] instead of by the Invisible Hand of the blind market (capitalist economics) and instead of by the government (socialist economics)."[6][7]
A French economist, Michel Laloux[8], who is inspired by the economic thinking of the Austrian philosopher and social thinker Rudolf Steiner (including the Steiner's concept of "associative economics"), has written a book that presents why and how all the factors of production must be taken into account in pricing. Laloux's book is actually presents the obligations-rights monetary paradigm, and how this can be architectured institutionally in accordance with the three functions of a monetary system (finance, payment and transfer to the public goods and services circuit)[9].

2) The lawful establishment of network of civil society sponsored special economic zones throughout the world, supported by a research-action faculty:

The practical realisation of socio-economic and cultural regeneration, based on the social accounting paradigm of monetised obligations-rights that has been outlined patchily above, can only be accomplished experientially, through the lawful establishment of a network of special economic zones throughout the world, with each SEZ having its own research-action faculty, from which an transnational multidisciplinary and cross cultural faculty can be established for international cooperation, orientated towards the establishment of a non-partisan international monetary system, provided as a public service by CSOs, and which will function on the basis of decentralised power through the decommodification of the social accounting entries, as well as cooperative subsidiarity. These SEZs will function as safehaven/lifeboat laboratories, to empirically test, pilot and refine the new social accounting paradigm proposed, as well as its subsequent replication in other territories. This initiative will be led and regulated by the Third Sector of organised civil society, and commence with an enabling civil society legal mobilisation, for the establishment of such SEZs, in accordance with a strategy based on the "rule of higher law" (see: [1] - [3c]).

3) How the price of commodities can be denominated, according to an international monetary unit of account referenced to food-energy

Firstly food-energy is the basic universal requirement for fuelling any kind of human work, whether physical, intellectual, artistic or spiritual in nature.
The question is not as you framed it; of trying to directly determine the "joule contents of commodities", whether "of an aspirin, a software program or a medical service".
It is about ensuring the foundation of economic regeneration and realising the full potential of human life - healthy food produced sustainably and accessible to the whole population.
The paper by CasP researcher Joseph Baines[11] shows that this foundation has been disastrously hollowed out to state of imminent collapse by the predations of the financial market system and its paradigm of commodified social accounting.

It is also about jettisoning the costly racket of Forex markets[12], where rigged volatility in purchasing power between different "floating" monetary units of account allow parasitic "traders" to rob the purchasing power of individuals and enterprises. This racket setup is also a threat to world peace, as it enables geopolitical bullying by the "currency hegemon" (the US Dollar) and its feudal barons (Euro, Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, and Pound sterling).
Incredibly, at the level of international payments, monetary units of accounts are treated as if they were real commodities, so that exchanges between national polities have to go through a system of transfers between central bank warehouses[13]. Nobody questions why cannot a direct arithmetical conversion be made between the monetary units that are supposed to be a of measurement of purchasing power, as is done in the case between kilos and pound weights, or inches to centimetres.

Now each polity can keep it national unit of account ("currency"), but the conversion rate between units of account need to be stabilised, and any adjustment needs to be based on real economic factors, not because of parasitic speculation or geopolitical economic warfare and sabotage. What is needed is a fixed reference that measures something fundamental and universal to all national polities/bio-regions. I posit that "something" is the daily food-energy requirement of the "average" human being (1,200 joules), costed in the national unit of account, in terms of one or more high-energy staple foods (wheat, rice, corn, potato etc) that can be grown productively and sustainably in the given polity/bio-region. By this method, relative parity between each national monetary unit will be determined to a stable reference that is coherent with the actual economic performance of the country, relative to its natural and cultural (human development) potential. As the daily food-energy requirement of a human being is not a specific "thing", but a constantly renewable universal need that cannot be inflated nor deflated (without causing disease and eventual death), and therefore cannot be commodified nor manipulated through supply and demand dynamics like gold. Also, unlike gold, it is a reference that is present in every territory inhabited by human beings.

In fact, this is not such an original idea. The Big Mac Index, which is published by The Economist magazine, is an informal way of measuring the purchasing power parity (PPP) between national monetary units (currencies)[14]. What is new is to use a food-energy unit of account as a way of converting purchasing power transferred across monetary unit jurisdictions in the course of international trade of real commodities. This has been proposed by Michel Laloux in his book "Dépolluer l'économie" (see notes [9] and [10]).

4) Marx's labour value theory of money was sabotaged by his own erroneous conception of money

My premise that economic commodities are produced by human work has implications regarding the seemingly total dismissal in the current Casp theory of a labour theory of value (i.e. money represents human work).
I am not an expert on Marxian economics, so I don't know how well Marx articulated his labour theory of value. But one thing I did discover is that Marx regarded money as a commodity: "The truth of the proposition that, 'although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver," is shown by the fitness of the physical properties of these metals for the functions of money."[15]. Further, economic researcher, Claus Germer, writes in the abstract of his paper: "Marx unequivocally defines money as a commodity and that he maintains this definition in his analysis of advanced capitalism [...] from the point of view or logic of his [Marx's] theoretical framework, money must be a commodity. [...] we can thus appreciate the total absence of any reference in Marx to the hypothesis that money must at any point become a non-commodity."[16].

Marx was therefore cognitively trapped within the paradigm of commodified monetary social accounting. This alone would make it impossible to develop a coherent labour theory of value, because he would have to occupy the conceptual space of the social accounting paradigm of monetised obligations-rights.

I therefore suggest that further research be done to establish whether CasP theory is also unknowingly trapped like Marx was within a singular paradigm. This would not undermine the capital as a mode of power thesis, but only make it more open to more promising social accounting alternatives.


[1] The rule according to a higher law means that no law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain universal principles (written or unwritten) of fairness, morality, and justice[1a] (Lehman and Phelps, 2005). Thus, the rule according to a higher law may serve as a practical legal criterion to qualify the instances of political or economical decision-making, when a government, even though acting in conformity with clearly defined and properly enacted legal rules, still produces results which many observers find unfair or unjust[1b][1c].

[1a] West's Encyclopedia of American Law (in 13 volumes), 2nd Ed., edited by Jeffrey Lehman and Shirelle Phelps. Publisher: Thomson Gale, 2004. ISBN 0-7876-6367-0. -

[1b] Sellers, M.N. (2003) Republican Legal Theory: The History, Constitution and Purposes of Law in a Free State. - ... 520n%2520s

[1c] According to Professor Mortimer Sellers[1d] "… legal systems require justification and that when this justification fails they have no claim on our allegiance. The proper justification for legal systems is the advancement of justice[1e]. He also argues that: "international law both historically does and properly should depend on this same principle for its authority."[1f].

[1d] Mortimer Sellers is Regents Professor of the University System of Maryland, where he is Director of the Center for International & Comparative Law - ­see:

[1e] Email communication between Raymond Aitken and Mortimer Sellers, about "Rule according to higher law", dated 29 March 2016.

[1f] Sellers, M.N. (2006) Republican Principles in International Law The Fundamental Requirements of a Just World Order. -

[2] "In some countries, the political leaders assert that the rule of law is purely a procedural concept. Therefore, they argue that any government may strip its subjects of their fundamental freedoms or infringe their vital interests so long as this is done by way of a duly implemented legal mechanism. For example, at the Nuremberg trials, in an attempt to justify their crimes against Jewish and Romany population of Europe during World War II, some of the former leaders of Nazi Germany argued that they had broken none of the laws effective when Hitler had been in power. It was only by invoking the rule according to a higher law that the Allied prosecutors were able to overcome such defenses."[2a][2b][2c]

[2a] SOURCE: ... higher_law

[2b] Introductory note by Antonio Cassese for General Assembly resolution 95(I) of 11 December 1946 (Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognised by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal) - AND, adopted as a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 11 December 1946 -

[2c] This historical precedent in International Law could inspire a "legal mobilisation" of Civil Society, whereby individuals invoke their lawful rights, and use litigation to defend or develop these innate and universal human rights, in order to rebut and rectify the unjust or illegitimate application of legalities, which contravene the rule of higher law. This perhaps is a strategy to be investigated for establishing a social accounting system (international monetary system), under the paradigm of money as rights and obligations embedded within a social contract, so that universal political-economy suffrage would replace the private undemocratic centralised power regime of the incumbent distorted system, which is based on the obfuscated unlawful accumulation of monetised social power through capitalist accounting. Since the social contract (the State) has since a longtime been co opted as the enforcer maintaining and upholding the interests of the financial-mafia, we need to educate civil society, as well as the members of the State enforcement apparatus (police and military) about the implications for them of the Nürnberg Principles. The only legitimate application of the State enforcement apparatus is to protect human rights (and uphold counterparty obligations), from both domestic (the police) and foreign threats (the military). Any other application is an abuse of power and crime against humanity, whose perpetrators at all levels (policy and execution), and from whatever polity, must be brought to justice.

[3] Legal instruments pertain to human2human (H2H) contracts, which to be lawful, must accord to the "rule of Higher Law" (human2Creator) - see [1] above. For legal contracts to be lawful, they must determine, in an honest and transparent manner, the respective rights and obligations of parties to a voluntary and mutually beneficial agreement, which agreement must not harm the rights of any third parties, whether directly or indirectly. There are prima facie grounds[3a][3b] for investigating the lawfulness of financialised (commodified) legal instruments; as well as the whole institutional edifice of the financial market system[3c].

[3a] Deception and fraud by banks: See "Banks don’t take deposits. Banks don’t lend money.", by Professor Richard Werner (2017) - ... end-money/

[3b] "The veil of deception over money: how central bankers and textbooks distort the nature of banking and central banking", by Norbert Häring (2013) -

[3c] "The Articles of Agreement [of the IMF] that Should Boil Everyone’s Blood", published by Covert Geopolitics (2016) - ... nes-blood/

[4] This is another component of the paradigmatic-shift to money as an obligations-rights (debt-credit) social accounting system. Every human being is born with an innate set of abilities, which can be developed and invested within the context of cooperative social structures (schools-universities, economic institutions and infrastructures etc). The notion of "labour markets" arises only within the enslavement (wage slavery) dynamic of the commodified money paradigm. Like financial markets, labour markets are also redundant under the monetised obligations-rights paradigm. Instead of "investors" being apex-rentiers holding accumulated purchasing power as a result of non-reciprocal pecuniary earnings, and using this commodified monetary power as ransom-lever over real economy producers; everyone will instead become an investor of their own human capital (their innate abilities/talents)[4a][4b]. Labour will cease to be a "cost of production" and instead be an investment upon which an equitable return is due.

[4a] See: "Human capital: what it is and why people invest it", by Thomas O. Davenport (1999) - ... 0470436816

[4b] Extracts from the book referenced at [4a] above: "I define human capital broadly as ability, which I put into several subcategories. Knowledge, skill, and talent are the terms I use most. Things people can learn constitute knowledge, which are bits of information and insight one can gather. Skill is what people have when they develop the refined ability to apply what they know. Talent comprises inborn or intrinsic abilities. Take the total of those elements and multiply it by effort and you have invested human capital."
"Viewing people as human capital investors also requires us to understand that human capital investors – like financial investors – require a return on their investment. We might refer to the return on human capital investment as ROIw, the return on investment in work. You can categorize the return on investment in work in any number of ways, but I favor four specific categories: intrinsic job fulfillment, opportunity for growth and advancement, recognition for accomplishments, and financial rewards."
"To recognize that people are human capital owners and investors is to recognize that much of the control over the employment relationship has shifted from the organization to the individual. Employees come to work every Monday morning and decide how much of their intellectual, emotional, and physical resources to invest in a business. They can withdraw all or part of that investment at almost any time. They can move it to a different organization, or change the employment relationship, or change the terms of their implicit contract with much greater flexibility than we saw a decade or so ago. Human capital is a moveable asset, and people – not organizations – control its movement.".

[5] This contribution to the maintenance-regeneration of the commonwealth-overhead factors of production is essentially a transfer from the commercial-productive economic circuit to the public-regenerative economic circuit. Taxation was supposed to be a means to effect this necessary transfer between the two circuits of the economy, but it has been substantially captured and transformed into another vector of differential accumulation. Anthropological research tends to indicate that monetised debt-credit social accounting arose in ancient agrarian economies as a means of financing overhead factors of production and human development (large-scale irrigation system; urban infrastructures; social order; temple building; etc). Proto-State institutions circulated purchasing rights that stimulated further economic specialisation and productivity, buy "purchasing" existing goods and services in order to complete public works. The counterparty production obligations were not notarised as a production obligation (debt) of any person (individual or corporate), but as "public debt"; which was then cleared upon the completion of the corresponding public works, and signified upon a year-end demand on the whole population, to return the allocated purchasing rights (credit) so that the proto-State could clear the public debt.


[7] See also:

[8] See Michel Laloux's website:

[9] See Michel Laloux's book: "Dépolluer l'économie" - ... ct/l3.html

[10] I have translated "Dépolluer l'économie" (see [9] above) into English. The author is in the process of preparing the English translation for self-publication.

[11] Accumulating through Food Crisis? Farmers, Commodity Traders and the Distributional Politics of Financialization, by Joseph Baines (2017) -

[12] Foreign exchange transactions of US$1.5 quadrillion (1,500 trillion) dwarf international trade of US$20 trillion (less than 1.4 percent of all foreign exchange transactions). SOURCE: ... ure-points

[13] Warehouse banking model - see: "WAREHOUSE BANKING" by Jason Roderick Donaldson et al (2016) - ... entino.pdf

[14] See: "What a $7.54 Swiss Big Mac tells us about global currencies", by Katie Allen, Guardian Newspaper (2015) - ... currencies

[15] Karl Marx: "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy", Chapter 1, Part 1 - SOURCE: ... d-advocate

[16] "The Commodity Nature of Money in Marx’s Theory", by Claus Germer (2005) - ... 27s_Theory
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:58 pm
Location: Andalucia, Spain

Return to Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest