What Is Dual Economic Structure (Latter Part Not Suitable for Children and Aliens)

2008/7/4 16:04:21

First, about stocks: today a bottom fractal was barely formed, but it's the weakest kind. If 2753 cannot be conquered early next week, another bottom test is inevitable. This kind of back-and-forth provides plenty of short-term opportunities, especially for those who proactively bought into the dip — this kind of oscillation allows for the best cost-averaging operations.

Enough about stocks. Watching the news today really stirred up many emotions, triggered by a report about Mr. Zhang from the former Qingqi Group. The first time I met that old man was probably eight or nine years ago, at a Shandong-run hotel on Ping'an Avenue — something like "Qilu Hotel" or whatever, I don't quite remember. At that time, he probably already knew there were problems. This ID went there trying to take advantage of the situation, wanting to get Hainan Pharmaceutical out of his hands. Looking back now, people really are multifaceted — a so-called bad person, once you actually interact with them, isn't necessarily some monstrous villain. Many factors are involved — no one could possibly sort it all out clearly.

Shandong people probably all have that kind of stubborn tenacity. A friend of this ID once founded one of the currently largest companies. Back then, some petty infighting caused a major incident. That Shandong buddy shouldered everything alone, protecting an entire province's worth of people. Later it was proven that those petty squabbles were quite frivolous indeed. You tell me — how could simplistic moral judgments possibly sort through something so complex?

Let's drop it — saying more is pointless. Let's just talk about dual economic structure.

What is dual economic structure? This question has actually already been explained quite clearly in the posts above. In capitalist society, all dual economic structures ultimately originate from the evolution of two types of capitalism. Dual economic structure, in this evolution, manifests in different historical forms. For example, earlier forms may present as the agricultural-industrial dual structure, and later gradually evolve historically into state-owned vs. private, government-run vs. civilian-run, planned vs. market, and various other forms of dual structure.

For countries with simpler histories, the historical evolution of dual structure unfolds temporally — that is, you can find a clear, gradually evolving logical sequence along the linear progression of time. But in countries like China with such complex histories, this historical evolution of dual structure manifests as a temporal-spatial interaction, where the spatial coexistence of different dual sub-structures over extended periods is the most obvious manifestation of this interaction. For example, in present-day China, all the dual structures mentioned above spatially coexist in the current time period — whether agricultural-industrial, state-owned vs. private, government-run vs. civilian-run, planned vs. market, and so on — all constitute various facets of China's current overall dual structural existence. When we discuss the duality of China's economy, talking about any single sub-structure alone is one-sided; we must examine things from the perspective of the overall real structure constituted by all dual sub-structures.

However, the temporal relationships of the historical logical sequence are not invalidated by this interaction. For example, the more primitive agricultural-industrial dual sub-structure will gradually disappear first with further economic development, while new forms of dual sub-structures will gradually emerge. The world is not static — it exists in constant cycles of upheaval. And these cycles are not dull, unchanging repetitions — even if the isomorphic structural relationships of these cycles remain unchanged, their real-world manifestations are endlessly varied.

For the current world, the emergence of new global dual economic sub-structures at the international level is actually even more important. However, from the perspective within a single country, we must of course continue to pay attention to those older forms of dual economic sub-structures.

So, tracing further back, where do the roots of dual economic structure and the two historical forms of capitalism lie? Here, this ID is going to once again — in a way that will frustrate many people with its extreme narcissism and extreme arrogance — state that the revelation of these roots likewise comes from this ID's proprietary theory.

All roots ultimately originate from humans themselves. The existence of humans, at its most primitive, involves nothing more than two types of relationships: 1. Human and object; 2. Human and human. It is the historical evolution of these two most primitive existential relationships that constitutes the ultimate root described above. As for how this root unfolds temporally and spatially into the magnificent panorama of world history — that will be a small chapter in this ID's economic theory, though writing it out in detail would also take an enormous amount of time. But this ID's theory is actually a purely geometric theory, and anyone with a modicum of wisdom, based on the grand logical roadmap this ID has outlined above, combined with the development of world economic history and the historical relationships among those five social formations, can arrive at one and the same inevitable conclusion.

It's the weekend, so let me add some extra material and share more of this ID's proprietary theory with everyone. Below, I will use the purest mathematical logic and classification methods to demonstrate the intellectual feebleness and underlying cruelty of Western economics.

The following content is not suitable for persons under eighteen. Of course, if your body is eighteen but your intellect is eighteen months, you'd best not read it either — you'll read it for nothing.

And since this is written for earthlings, if there happen to be some Martians or aliens from Andromeda mixed in here, there's no need for you to read it either. For earthlings, the existence of Earth as an objective system requires no assumptions or preconditions.

For the human world, since humans need to eat, there must necessarily be something edible outside of humans. Note that a rigorous proof must consider this scenario — namely, the case of cannibalism. Otherwise, for instance, if cannibalism could be sustained, then one could not rigorously prove in theory that the human world must necessarily have objects. (Note that since there are too few people with mathematical minds and experience, most people seeing this kind of proof will find it very boring, because in reality of course where there are humans there are objects. But reality is just the most pitiful special case of the mathematical proof. In the purview of mathematical proof, special cases don't count and have nothing to do with the proof. And it is precisely because of this "boringness" of proofs that ensures they transcend reality and have more universal significance than reality.)

From the perspective of pure proof, in any system isomorphic to Earth, the quantity of all existing things is finite, and humans are no exception. And humans all die, so there must be some means of producing new humans, such as reproduction, to ensure that finite quantities don't ultimately become zero. In other words, to maintain the long-term existence of the human system, some means of producing new humans like reproduction is necessary — generically, we name this function "reproductivity."

Here, we must design a model that allows humans who need to eat, who die, but who have reproductivity, to exist through cannibalism alone, so that objects don't need to be involved. There are three possibilities here, classified by whether humans eat human corpses.

1. Humans only eat human corpses

In this scenario, there must be a certain proportional relationship between human survival energy consumption, energy provided per corpse, reproduction rate (from which survival rate can be defined), and death rate — otherwise there will be too many living humans and too few dead ones, with not enough corpses to eat. Also, including the following two scenarios, all must require that humans possess this quality: no natural force is sufficient to annihilate humanity. Furthermore, the energy consumed by humans produced through reproductivity cannot exceed the corresponding system isomorphic to Earth, otherwise the sustained existence of such a human society cannot be theoretically guaranteed absolutely.

2. Humans only eat living humans

This scenario likewise requires that the four kinds of data mentioned in scenario one maintain a certain energy proportional relationship. More importantly, there cannot be a situation where the energy gained from eating one living person is insufficient to support the energy needed both to reproduce one living person and for the eater to continue surviving. Therefore, even in this scenario, when humans eat newly born infants like ginseng fruits, there still strictly exists behind it all an invisible hand — this cold numerical relationship.

3. Humans eat both corpses and living humans

In this scenario, human food sources are more abundant, so the probability of the system's existence is naturally greater. The corresponding relationships are just a synthesis of scenarios one and two — nothing much more to say.

Note that there is an extremely critical point here, namely the introduction of the relationship between nature and humans in scenario one. Nature, at its simplest, is the spacetime we exist in, and in any specific habitable spacetime, the corresponding usable energy is finite, which constitutes the boundary conditions for the survival of all types of human society. Therefore, the relationship between humans and nature constitutes the most important set of relationships outside of human-to-human relationships, and even the non-existence of human-object relationships cannot diminish its importance. There is a dedicated chapter on this aspect in this ID's economic theory — this point is extremely important.

From the above discussion, actually as long as certain numerical relationships exist, humans don't need objects and can survive purely on cannibalism while maintaining purely human-to-human-relationship societies — this has theoretical existence possibilities. Therefore, in the theoretical analysis of possible human societies, two classification types must exist: 1. Pure human-to-human relationship cannibal societies; 2. Societies with objects as intermediaries.

Since there are too few people with rigorously theoretical minds and profound insight, the above analysis might seem very boring. But what is most boring and simplest is often where the substance lies. A very important conclusion from the above discussion is: any human society, if without objects as intermediaries, is necessarily the first type — a pure human-to-human relationship cannibal society. This is an absolutely rigorous and extremely crucial assertion.

Therefore, although this ID does not feel that the current globalized capitalist social form is more advanced than a so-called cannibal society, at least because of the introduction of objects — or rather, when humans developed relationships with objects — humans at least moved beyond cannibalism in terms of the necessity of social forms.

Of course, since modern times and the so-called historical knowledge books can tell us, cannibal societies don't exist. But rigorous theoretical analysis mercilessly tells us that the existence of cannibal society is in fact the necessary historical precondition for all human societies' existence. Therefore, the emergence of various forms of cannibalism and their corresponding evolutionary forms in concrete historical manifestations becomes a theoretical and practical inevitability.

The existence of class society is an evolutionary form of this cannibal society's existence. In social forms where human-object relationships exist, this preconditive cannibal society's evolutionary form constitutes the inner kernel of existing social forms. The detailed discussion and proof of how cannibal society historically and practically manifests in evolutionary forms of class society constitutes a chapter for detailed discourse in this ID's theory, though of course it cannot be expanded upon here.

Naturally, the research focus of this ID's theory is the second type of social form that has already introduced human-object relationships. But the analysis and discussion of the cannibal social form, along with the historical evolution of corresponding class formations, creates an organic and logical connection between these two completely classified social forms, thus providing the necessary comprehensiveness and overall systematic nature that theory demands.

Once objects are introduced, we face the following complete classification: 1. Human and human; 2. Object and object; 3. Human and object.

Any complete and rigorous economic theory must unfold comprehensively from the perspectives of these three complete classifications. Unfortunately, apart from Marx's theory, all other types of economics — whether Stalinist or Western — have without exception been castrated by ideology.

So-called intellectually feeble Western economics is entirely based on a virtual transformation of human-object relationships into object-object relationships. This theoretical perspective's paranoia and distortion is precisely the inevitable theoretical counterpart to its social reality of division of labor that further mechanizes humans into parts. Why does Western-style capitalist society have such economics? This is not entirely blind — there exists such a profound correspondence. Because transforming human-object relationships into object-object relationships essentially treats humans as objects, then uses the so-called mathematical-logical rationality of object-object relationships to argue for the rationality of this type of capitalist society, which in turn gives the rationality to globalized national slavery — this is the theoretical trick behind all Western-style brainwashing tricks.

So-called intellectually feeble Stalinist economics unfolds purely from human-to-human relationships. Human-to-human relationships here are reduced to a power-structured relationship, and this power structure is actually also dualistic — for example, leader and masses, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, enemy contradictions and contradictions among the people, materialism and idealism, and so on. In such societies, the most commonly heard slogan is "Be a revolutionary screw" — the deeper meaning of "screw" is mechanization into parts, which is the inevitable stamp of its capitalist form. But where this Stalinist power-capital capitalism is even more dehumanizing than Western capitalism is that in Western style, you can still be a CPU or an internal combustion engine, whereas here, in the name of so-called revolution, you can only be a screw — the mechanization has even progressed to a specific part. No wonder this form of capitalism was destined to go bankrupt.

A society that doesn't treat humans as humans is doomed to perish — the speed of its demise is probably correlated with the degree to which it fails to treat humans as humans. Note that the highest form of power capitalism manifests theoretically and historically as the introduction of a logic of creating new humans and new society. Western pure-capital capitalism, starting from transforming human-object relationships into object-object relationships, naturally doesn't need to create any new humans or new society — what they need are entertainees controlled by media. Power-capital capitalism, with its ultimately dualistic hierarchical human-to-human relationships, necessarily requires a quasi-Christian concept of heavenly kingdom — a so-called new society — followed by a Christianized so-called creation of new humans. In Christianity, forms like baptism have isomorphic counterparts in power capitalism, which might be Little Red Books, loyalty dances, and million-person rallies with oceanic cheering. Thought reform and thought reports are like Christianity's daily confession rituals.

What does this illustrate? It illustrates that although humanity has many tricks, in an isomorphic sense, humans are forever just creatures playing the same dual-structure game — nothing new.

And when humans are subjected to the trick of "new human" transformation, humans become thoroughly mechanized and turned into parts, and the countdown to the demise of the corresponding social form begins. Therefore, after power-capital capitalism completed its final ideological frenzy, its comprehensive collapse toward Western-style capitalism at the end of the twentieth century became a theoretical and practical inevitability.

Any economic phenomenon and historical trick that appears in human society — even changes as dramatic as those at the end of the twentieth century — all have theoretical inevitability and comprehensiveness within this ID's economic theory. There is so much to say — if this ID were to write out the economic theory, it would definitely be thicker than Old Marx's four-volume Capital. Thinking about it, although this ID finds playing mahjong very boring, it does seem a bit more interesting than this.

Therefore, this ID has decided to celebrate the weekend with mahjong tonight. This ID's younger sibling has gone out to get the mahjong set ready. Theory is grey — let the tree of mahjong stay evergreen tonight.

Tomorrow there's an adaptive football training session arranged, so there won't be any posts. Everyone please give this ID a break and let this ID rest for a day. Today's long post should be enough for everyone to chew on for a while. This ID is now off to enjoy some private pleasures.