THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY: THESIS ON THE HISTORICAL ARC OF VALUE AND THE STATE 3

3THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY:

THESIS ON THE HISTORICAL ARC OF VALUE AND THE STATE

GCI

Money does not arise from fiefdom, in the same way that it does not arise from nature or the primitive community, but, as money, it acts between societies dissolved by predatory war, slavery, repression and state terrorism.

To summarize, money does not develop inside the fiefdom, but outside and against the feudal social structure. Value in process does not arise from the intrinsic limits of feudalism, as economists and historians say, but on the basis of its own process of accumulation (outside and against productive structures) based on credit, monetary development and world trade.

As for slavery, the falsification is even more gigantic, because the bourgeois economist places slavery as the original sin of the economy, in the famous "primitive accumulation" when slavery is the essence of the historical development of money and its transformation (which we prefer to call affirmation) into capital.

It is not only Adam Smith who situates the real history of the economy and society as an original sin alien to the development of capital itself, but the whole of bourgeois political economy, including cultural and social democratic Marxism, Stalinist and Trotskyist Marxism-Leninism. All of them call an idyllic world of mercantile exchange where everything is liberty, equality, fraternity and above all the development of productive forces a "strictly capitalist mode of production".

It is a lie that "work" creates value. The productive activity of the native community does not produce values, it only produces objects useful to the human species. These same objects are transformed into values by the appropriation by another society, the false community of money. The true source of value is appropriation, slavery, the application of force by the money society against human societies, expropriation and not productive activity.

The entire historical arc of value is violence, forced appropriation, slavery. There is not an atom of human needs in the origin and historical development of capital. In the same way as with the generalization of commodity production, i.e. the globalization of capital, there will not be an atom of value in the productive activity of humans: the valorization of value is always exploitation/appropriation.
... From its origin, money does not come into the world from equality and fraternity. On the contrary, money, even in its "pre-flood" forms, does not start from peace and equality but from war, conquest, forced appropriation, compulsory tribute, direct slavery, debt and/or usury, as debt slavery, monetary issuance...
MANUSCRIPTS (1982/88)

9)
That is why bourgeois economy, that is to say, CAPITAL, theorizing about the historical generalization of the commodity, permanently "confuses" use value, which is the utility that the object offers to human beings, with the exchange relation between commodities, which would depend, they say, on the "labor contained" in commodities. He even tries (with Smith, Ricardo, Marx...) to establish a quantitative relationship between the real value of commodities, as they are exchanged on the market, and the actual expenditure of physical energy used (exchange value). Hence, in the so-called history of the commodity, economists begin by affirming that it is "labor" (falsely identified with the activity of humans to produce what they need) that determines the exchange value of commodities.

When it is then found that NONE of this works in the real economy, instead of recognizing that it is a historical absurdity to derive value and therefore money, which is a historical relationship of exploitation, usury, war, from a market in which the opposite is presupposed (that producers and sellers are free and equal, with identical organic composition of capital...!) All economists end up accepting that no product is exchanged in capitalism according to the hours actually worked. A clear conclusion reached by the greatest exponent of classical economics, David Ricardo, and which Marx reaffirms by saying that in reality things are NOT changed according to the labor they have incorporated, but according to the cost of production (David Ricardo) or the prices of production (Karl Marx): Capital volume III.

10)
As the physiocrats said, the mother of "value" is the land and its father is work. Of course, here, by "work" (like all the ruling and exploiting classes) we do not mean the social reality of work, that is to say torture, slavery, exploitation, but exclusively... the activity of material production of the objects necessary for human life.

Classical economics, including Marx, will recognize the validity of this statement for the whole of human history, but only if this statement refers exclusively to the thing, as a use value and to the point of view of the reproduction of the objects necessary to the life of any society. In strict terms: Neither the land, nor in work create values, but products necessary to life, which in themselves do NOT have an atom of "value".

A community of producers, a society in which all humans produce, is a society that does not produce values, because production is exclusively of necessary products. Moreover, the society of producers does not even exchange, by definition there is neither autonomy of producers, much less trade, money or values. Value, money, exists only IN FRONT of the society of free producers, acting as an external power and dissolving the community of producers.

In a society subject to money, the opposite happens, because capital exercises a real dictatorship over all productive activity. Values exist regardless of what is produced or worked. Or, to put it another way, a $100 bill can have the same VALUE as 5 kilos of meat or 100 liters of mineral water..., even though the quantities of labor are totally different and the "Marxist-Leninist" imbecilized by the "labor theory of value" (of classical economics), protests by saying that "that is not equitable" ("they are not equal values"): theory of "unequal exchange", pseudo-anti-imperialist.

In that case, everything has the same VALUE, 100 dollars, even if the work actually done to produce the 5 kilos of meat and the 100 liters of water contains more or less what (let’s say) 50 hours of work and the 100 dollar bill does not contain a single second of productive human activity. The latter happens with all counterfeit money, created by central banks in a totally independent way of the reserve requirements that would guarantee some component of "productive and labor truth".

In reality, neither today, in the total subsumption of humanity in value, nor in its origin thousands of years ago, does value depend on the amount of work done to produce a commodity, as the religion of political economy claims. That was always a fairy tale! Things in themselves have no value, only the society of value, that is, of MONEY and generalized commodity production, can attribute value to a thing. Value only values value. And the things necessary to human life are products, but not values. Only when they are appropriated, only when, as private property, they are brought to a market can they exist or NOT (commodity somersault), as values. Or, rather, only when they are recognized as part of the community of value, that is, of money, are they really values. But the only real expression of value is money itself, which is value in itself. Only subsumed in the real community of money, only as values interchangeable with any other value of the same quantum, do they exist as a FALSE community of humans and are recognized as such.

Historically, in the primitive community there was no work, there could be no values. Only violent appropriation, by war, rapine, slavery..." it produced" values, that is, it transformed into capital what had arisen for human life.
Although today we are shocked to understand that those who "produced" values, in reality "appropriated" objects that, in their possession, were transformed into values, the true subject of the "production of values" is always money, capital, the capitalist.

The slaveholders of yesterday and today transform the thing into value, when their society (slave) values the object in money and consecrates itself as a precise exchange value exchangeable in the capitalist market. But they also consecrate value by appropriating, oppressing, enslaving, just as they do when they impose taxes on the lower classes by exploiting them. And also when they receive taxes imposed by violence or, in short, subject human beings to debt or usury. Subsumption in money is precisely the leap in quality of the inclusion/domination of the human being in capital.

Nor does money arise from the community of human life and production, but from its exterior, from its frontier and can only be imposed by the violence of MONEY as a false community by means of war, slavery, tribute extorted by violence, usury, consolidation and issuance of debt.

Since the dissolution of the primitive community, only those values are those that are recognized in the community of money, whether or not they have contained work, that is why a false bill can have value if it is recognized as a value or is imposed by a centralized power, that is why water can have value if it is appropriated by the owners of money and finds a buyer or imposes it in advance in populations that have no other access to that vital element.

The same is true of the value of land, rent, or the appropriation of air for breathing—value does not depend at all on the quantity of labor, but on appropriation, rapine, and monopolization. The exchange of equals is pure lies, extracted from the old confusion between what is useful to the human being and value, between human need and the imposition of the dictatorship of money, to buy it.

In reality, the eternal historical confusion about value, which is invariably reduced to identifying human use value with value, stems from the bourgeois interest in selling capitalism (and its socialization) as the final station of human history. This, in turn, presupposes accepting that the current society is the egalitarian association of producers, free and independent, who instead of contributing money (values) contribute to the defined society, as a synonym for the market (another ahistorical hypothesis!) "commodities" that would be produced by the wear and tear of their labor forces and without any of them having accumulated labor and/or capital.

As Marx says in his critique of the classical economists, quoted above, everything is a vicious circle, capital only values capital. In real life, as opposed to the idyllic world of recognizing work as if it were value, only money is value, only that which "has" a value and can be exchanged for money is value. Not a hundredth of useful labour is recognised as value, neither 1000 years ago, nor in the present phase of capitalism.

As all those economists who make the difference between the useful object and value, including Marx, will affirm, they will recognize that in capitalism products are not exchanged for the labor contained in them, but for prices and/or costs of production, which as is known is a relationship of capital with its own valorization. The equalization of the rate of profit of capital determines the "prices of production," i.e., the VALUES at which commodities are exchanged.

The production of human means of life, of truly human activity, both today and in the primitive community or in isolated groups of humans is WORTHLESS. Conversely, the bill of exchange, the cheque or the banknote that does not have a second of work incorporated, has the value that it can buy with this paper, that is to say, it enters the community of money at the price that capital recognizes.

Only value creates value, money, capital is the true and only subject and criterion of value. That is the vicious circle of the reality of money, that is real and invariant capitalism.

MONEY as a (FALSE) COMMUNITY, is the only "thing" in common that remains to the slaves as a means to procure something to subsist on, when they no longer have even the sample of their true community, of their true HUMANITY.

11)

The official history is, so to speak, the history of the colored mirrors that the slaveholders put in a showcase, to realize their true class objectives, which is none other than slavery and domination itself. This history has in turn 2 inseparable aspects: the apology of its heroes, gods, pharaohs, emperors, republics, kings, princes, ayatollahs, monks, trade unionists, politicians, parliamentarians... and the apology of material progress, of objects and progress in the control of nature at the service of society as a whole. Or, to put it another way, official history puts in the showcase and pedestal its own historical representatives and the modes of production of things that are supposed to be made for the whole of society at that time.

History as seen by slaves, serfs, proletarians, outcasts... it cannot be anything other than the critique of that history. Not only denouncing all classes and characters of domination, wars and oppression in each period or region, but also denouncing that history of progress conceived by the oppressors, as if each mode of production of things had been an advance for humans to the capitalist paradise and its planned socialization.

It is necessary to criticize the very conception of history, seen as a constant progress of the material, of history seen as the progress of successive modes of production that are ever better for humans, whose supreme caricature will be the Marxist-Leninist construction: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism... Marxism-Leninism is, in this sense, the highest point of bourgeois economic science, crowning classical economics, as the end point of the history of progress. Their socialism is the supreme dictatorship of capital and the world state. Throughout the twentieth century, the doctrine of the Judaic/Jesuit/Freemason sects that run the universities, secret services, entertainment industries and in general all the State apparatuses in the shadows of the "New World Order" of Capital was consecrated as the economic science par excellence.

The principle of this critique (of the economy and its history) is precisely what we assume in this text, showing that, regardless of the mode of production of things, exploitation and domination have remained unchanged, for thousands of years, that regardless of the colored mirrors (things, the "mode of production"), put in display case by the world plutocracy, human beings are getting worse and worse.

Exploitation and oppression is what really progresses.

What "improves" with the development of money and its power is the subsumption of all humanity into capital.

We return to the distinction between use value and value, thing and money, to affirm that the history of the apology for the development of use values, the history of modes of production (of the things necessary to live), hides the fact that relations of exploitation and oppression have made this world increasingly contrary to the freedom of humans. The invariance of the social relation of capital is only a progress of exploitation and oppression. But not only are the historical relations of exploitation and domination increasingly slave-like and despotic, but the same objects (produced by the dictatorship of money) are increasingly contrary to humanity: the ever more massive manufacture of weapons of destruction instead of objects necessary for human beings.

That is to say, that material progress determined by the historical dictatorship of value over the objects produced and the modes of production, of the rate of profit and the rate of exploitation against human life only produces destruction, intoxication, junk food, toxics, extermination, genocide...

INTERNATIONALIST COMMUNIST GROUP (ICG) 2025
https://icg-gci.kilombo.top/