4-1
A General Theory Of Difference Arranging proports to be a statement of the fundamental cause of destruction, and to be of such a nature that where a condition of deterioration or destruction is encountered, by the concepts it presents shows how the condition can be alleviated or ended.

4-2
Many conditions of destruction can be observed in human business activities. Therefore, as one of the tests of the validity of this theory, both to see if it can state why a condition of destruction is taking place according to its concepts, and then suggest how the condition can be alleviated or ended, let us make a "Difference Arranging Analysis" of current business systems, the problems they encounter, and see what remedy if any is suggested by the theory for the problems.

4-3
A basis for comparison for this discussion can be the ideas of Marxism. Marxism contends misuse of "surplus value" is the cause of much of the discontent and destruction encountered in economics. This discussion contends that a basic mathematical unworkability of current systems forces continual exceptions to be made to them to enable current systems to work at all. These exceptions continually violate the way a human being has been designed by nature to function, and thus lead to many of the conditions of destruction found in current human business systems.

4-5
The remedy for deterioration or destruction in human business systems seemingly suggested by Marxism is to try to force things which are different to be treated as if they are the same, (force people to be Communistically "equal"). The remedy seemingly suggested by current forms of Capitalism is to engage continually in confiscation of property, (principally by taxation, loss by tax default, and business failure or bankruptcy), which moves people in a direction toward being "more equal"), not carried out to the same extreme as Marxism, but consisting in reality of only a different degree of the same basic process, (who shall be destroyed to solve a problem). The remedy suggested by this discussion is to structure a business procedure in such a manner that it is modeled after the fundamental process upon which nature is constructed which is arrangement according to difference. This is done by treating all factors in a business system according to their accumulated total, ("true total"), and thus arranging them in an order of graduated magnitude, instead of using mathematical agreements, concepts, or procedures which produce the result either directly or in effect of trying to treat individuals or factors in the arrangement different from their true totals, or to exclude some of the elements in a situation from its difference arranging process.

4-6
The crux of the position taken in this discussion is that the fundamental principle upon which being is constructed is difference, not sameness or "equalism", and that the essence of accomplishing creation instead of destruction is to achieve proper Difference Arrangement rather than trying to force different things to be "equal", or to try to decide what must be subtracted from, eliminated from a situation, or "reacted against" equally or as a "stronger force overpowering, enslaving, or destroying a weaker force, to solve a problem. The end result would apparently be in a business context, as in the other areas of application of this basic view of being, the reducing or ending of conditions of deterioration or destruction, (accomplishing the purpose of being which is creation; see "A General Theory Of Difference Arranging" for discussion of "purpose of being" not in a human business system context. The book and computer disk "Chain Reaction" by John Believer contains such a discussion).

4-7
Now let us turn to a more detailed examination of the situations of deterioration and destructionfound in or caused by present business systems. This might also be thought of as the beginning of a text book in Elementary Proportional Participation Economics.

4-8

4-9
The essence of civilization is a group of creatures gathering together to accomplish a division of labor, that is to say divide up among them the performance of various tasks required for their mutual survival, instead of the individuals involved each being self-sufficient.

4-10
In more technical terms, this is referred to as uniting land and labor to produce consumable goods and services.

4-11

Very shortly after such a procedure is undertaken, a problem inevitably arises. This is that varying results are achieved by the different individuals performing different tasks. Thus at the very outset we begin to see a Difference Arranging Effect starting to take place, that is to say a tendency for differences to become apparent in the factors comprising a condition, and as a consequence of the differences an arranging process according to difference.

4-12
Not only are varying results achieved by the participating individuals, but also varying quantities of the goods and services thus being produced are soon noted. The problem thus invariably arises, due to the constant functioning of the Difference Arranging Effect among the entities involved, of trying to decide who shall receive first of the more desirable items, or who shall be left out if there is not enough of some things produced for all who may desire to receive them.

4-13

At early stages of a division of labor when all of the participating individuals tend to be acquainted with each other personally, the procedure which tends to develop to decide who shall receive scarce or more desirable items first, is for a tribal chief to preside over the process. He or she establishes orders of tribal rank, and thus the order of selection of who has prior choice before someone else to receive what is available.

4-14

As tribes of individuals personally acquainted with each other expand their activities in a division of labor to giving and receiving goods or services with strangers, the communication problems involved tend to evolve personal recognitions of value, status, or prior choice position, instead of having the order of prior choice to receive more desirable items determined by a mutually respected human being such as a tribal chief or a group's leader. This leads to devices such as mediums of exchange or money systems to enable an individual to prove by some kind of personal identification one can carry on one's person, rather than a decision by a tribal leader, that one is entitled to receive something out of an economic system because one has presumably put something in as evidenced by the value put in recognition or money one possesses.

4-15

The idea of using a personal recognition of value put into a business system, or money, as a means for an individual to receive out of a business system has taken the evolutionary direction of what can be called "equal value exchanging". In other words, for an individual to receive something out of a business system as presently conceived by the majority of current human civilization, an individual is expected to exchange an equal value for it. This equal value exchange usually takes the form of trading or exchanging a medium of exchange, that is to say money.

4-16
So much for a very brief observation of the process of evolution from first conceiving of accomplishing a division of labor, to current highly sophisticated economic systems using equal value exchanging as the basic principle to enable an individual to participate in the distribution of goods and services produced by a business system.

4-17

At first sight the idea of "exchanging value" in order to participate in receiving some of the results of a division of labor seems simple enough and easy to understand, but--- it is possible to observe many instances of deterioration or destruction taking place in current business systems, thus suggesting that there may be some kind of "Difference Arranging Violation" involved in the idea which at first seems to be so simple. Let us, therefore, look at the idea of "equal value exchanging" a little more closely, as well as various specific instances of the deterioration and destruction seeming continually to accompany the procedure.

4-18

What seems to be a very frequently encountered situation, often ultimately deteriorating into conditions of destruction, is the instance of an individual desiring to put value into a business system in the form of labor, so that one can obtain value for exchanging for goods and services one desires to receive from the system, but not being able to find such an opportunity, or, the opportunities available fall far short of being able to provide sufficient value to exchange on an equal value for value basis to purchase what appears to be available. Or in other words, one is unable to "find a job", or the jobs available "do not pay enough".

4-19
The preceding might be an instance of an individual who has not put any value into the system and is looking for one's first job. It is also a condition which can be encountered by someone who has to put value into the system in the past, does not have a job at present, and has also exchanged on a supposedly equal value for value basis all of the money one previously was paid for one's work, and currently is "broke", that is to say does not possess any more proof that one has put value into the system and thus is not able to receive any more out of the system.

4-20

From the standpoint of the arbitrary agreement that an "equal value" shall be exchanged, such an individual is not permitted to continue to participate in receiving what seems to be available from the system, but from the standpoint of what may be the basic principle upon which nature is constructed, and consequently the actual process of reasoning in which one's brain may be engaging, Difference Agganging suggests that what one thinks one is seeing around one is a "difference arrangement", consisting on one hand of goods and services available in a business system which one desires, and on the other hand that oneself is some place in the "difference arrangement" of who has a right to receive things first before other individuals corresponding to one's personal position, but that apparently one cannot find that "difference arranging position", or it is being denied one in some manner. Or in other words, one is being left out of the "difference arrangement", and thus one is deprived of an ability to receive goods and services from the business system. All of the above convoluted and excessively wordy statement is usually referred to in the much briefer form "the plight of the poor and homeless".

4-21
The preceding, within the concepts presented in this discussion, constitutes a "Difference Arranging Violation". An individual is being treated as if one is no total at all, (cannot find a job), and whatever totals one may have put into the system in the past, through the process of trading one's recognition of the work in order to receive from the system, one no longer possesses, and thus one has no proof by the basic rules of the system that one ever was any total in the past. One is thus in effect a non-entity as far as the difference arranging processes of the system are concerned. One is thus not included in the difference arrangements of which one is aware in one's surroundings. What does one do?

4-22

If a person continues to be denied an ability to be part of the difference arranging process which one's senses are telling a person is taking place about one, one ultimately engages in destructive actions; the result of a difference arranging violation according to the theory set forth in this discussion. What are the destructive actions? They can range from self-destruction, (suicide), to seeking to destroy whomever or whatever one comes to imagine is preventing one from being treated according to one's true total, and thus to be included properly in the difference arrangement that constitute one's environment, and in which one's mental processes constructed by nature in one's body causes one to feel one should be included. The destruction may consist of stealing, riots, scape-goat murdering, wars against other tribes or nations, or perhaps just personal feelings of bitterness, hate, or a deteriorating mental condition where eventually one becomes unable to continue further in rational thought, (accurate difference arranging) with accompanying actions such as alcoholism or abuse of other drugs. Or it might be said that one destroys oneself or others because life no longer makes sense.

4-23

When we examine the apparent reasons why such a condition takes place, that is to say not all of the elements in a situation being included in a manner of "difference arrangement" (from larger to smaller magnitudes), what emerges from such an examination is an idea that it is a peculiarity of the "equal value exchange" arbitrary agreement upon which current business systems are based which causes the condition, rather than the condition arising from some inherent relationship which is unavoidable in uniting labor with land to produce consumable goods and services.

4-24

This discussion contends that the uniting of labor with land to produce consumable commodities, because of the inherent nature of being (of universal difference), cannot help but be a difference arranging process no matter what other titles it may be given, or what other viewpoints might be used to try to understand it, (such as adopting an arbitrary agreement of exchanging equal values), and accomplish order in the inexorable difference arranging that must take place because of how nature inherently functions. However, if an arbitrary agreement is made between human beings that the distribution method in their division of labor will be based on "equalism" in violation of, ignoring, not noticing, in ignorance of, or not caring what is the basic principle upon which nature is constructed, contradictions will take place continually with entities trying to understand and live with the procedure (such as human beings) which are products of the evolutionary or Difference Arranging procedures of nature, and because of the contradiction of how nature functions, substantial numbers of the human beings will not be able to comprehend or creatively rationalize what their sense organs measure as what is taking place around them.

4-25
Let us try to see then, why it seems necessary in equal value exchanging business to arrive at conclusions and the result of leaving parts of a difference arrangement out of a whole arrangement, such as the condition of a human being desiring to work, not being able to find a job, but what one desires to consume seemingly having already been produced by the business system of which one is presumably a part.

4-26

We find that such a situation can arise, for example, because of stagnation taking place in the procedure of exchanging equal values. Goods or services have been produced and are available for exchanging, and those making them available or selling them see no reason to pay individuals money in exchange for more work when what has already been produced has not yet been sold. In fact because of the inherent nature of an equal value exchanging basic agreement, it may be impossible for pay to be given for additional work until some money is collected in exchange for what has already been produced. A stalemate thus takes place. Individuals cannot exchange equal values for what is available unless they can be given pay for work, but pay cannot be given for work unless some of what is already available is sold in exchange for money. The net effect of this situation in the terminology of this discussion, is to cause both unsold goods and services, and the individuals desiring to receive them but without money to buy them, to be left out of the respective difference arrangements involved. This difference arrangement violation takes place, not because there is an absence of something to arrange in a difference arrangement, nor because no one has engaged in putting value into a business system in order to gain purchasing ability, but rather because of a peculiarity arising solely from the agreement that an "equal" value must be exchanged in order to purchase something.

4-27

A theory which was advanced by another individual who addressed his thoughts to this problem, was that individuals who failed to have value to exchange for goods and services available in an economic system, arrived at such a position because some other individuals improperly received the value for exchanging that they should have received. This he designated as an "unearned increment", or "surplus value", arising from situations such as machines replacing human beings, or individuals not being paid properly for labor they put into a business system. It is contended here that this was a superficial analysis of the true situation involved, and that the remedy suggested by that other individual of confiscating the "surplus value" or "unearned increment" from those whom he designated as having received it improperly, and redistributing it to those who should have received it instead by his opinions, failed to comprehend the actual mathematics of the situation which was taking place, failed to understand the basic laws or principles of nature involved in the entities constituting the condition, and in effect by the remedy suggested failed to suggest anything different from a continuance of the same basic condition which caused the problem to arise in the first place, so that it would thus continue to re-arise again and again no matter how often the confiscation and redistribution of the "surplus value" or "unearned increment" might be undertaken to try to remedy the problem. That other individual whom this discussion says failed to understand what is actually taking place, and suggested an improper solution to the problem is Karl Marx.

4-28

This discussion contends that it is always, inevitably, sooner or later impossible to exchange equal value among a group of entities that are fundamentally unequal. The solution to this condition is not to try either directly or in effect to force entities that are different from each other to be the same (or "equal"), or to treat things which are different as if they are the same, but rather to adopt ways of accurately measuring the differences involved, for the purpose of arranging all of the entities comprising a situation in a manner of graduated magnitude arrangement. The goal to strive for should not be to try to make different things the same (such as by confiscating "surplus value" from those who have acquired it "improperly, and giving it to someone else, or destroying whoever is felt to be "at fault"), but rather to try to achieve an accurate prior choice arrangement including all of the factors involved, (instead of in effect leaving out some through situations such as unemployment, unsold merchandise, or seeking to destroy whoever is "at fault").

4-29

Here the idea is suggested that it is not necessarily an individual trying selfishly and maliciously to grab "surplus value" to which one is not entitled, for the purpose of enslaving someone else, purposely making them miserable, or purposely trying to deprive them of an ability to participate in the process of economic distribution, while one enriches oneself, but rather a mathematical relationship which tends to arise due to the fundamental construction of being itself (of continual difference), that produces unexpected, undesired, and unplanned results for all concerned both rich and poor.

4-30

It is not denied that there have been instances of individuals who apparently were motivated in their personal actions more by personal greed than by trying to act in a fair and just manner toward everyone to whom a derogatory term of "Capitalist" as used by Marx could be applied, but it is also suggested here that there have also been many, if not a majority of individuals in current business systems who attempt different better motivations, but still find despite their best intentions (and prodigious efforts by legislatures to define precisely what is meant by "better intentions"), that many people, and many goods and services are left off the difference arrangements in their economic system, with resulting conditions of deterioration or destruction.

4 -31

"Capitalism" of a more enlightened kind than that commented on by Marx, has discovered the obvious (if one's vision is not blinded by religious-like dogmatic hate), that the way to get richer and richer is not to steal from or deprive "labor" of its ability to participate in the distribution of goods and services, but rather to continually expand customer markets, and the largest area for such expansion lies in the large number of people that is a system's "labor". Thus modern, enlightened Capitalism seeks to give labor more and more purchasing ability, so that higher and higher levels of consumption are achieved by everyone (instead of higher consumption by just the rich; a very limited consumer market). Such enlightened efforts, however, are constantly frustrated by certain peculiarities of an "equal value exchanging" system of economics, which we are in the process of examining here.

4-32

As a generality, it might be said that a truly knowledgable "Capitalist", would probably like nothing better than to be able to sell what he or she may be producing to every single person on the earth who might desire it, thus benefiting both those who purchase something they desire, and benefiting the producer and seller by the "earned increment" realized on each sale. A producer and seller is, however, prevented from achieving this ideal situation by the peculiarities of equal value exchanging economics wherein vast numbers of potential customers have no value to exchange for what one desires to sell them, and thus one can neither work within the confines of equal value exchanging to purchase the materials and labor necessary to fill such a need, or realize any "profit" for oneself either justly or unjustly, depending upon one's viewpoint. Stagnation thus takes place, economic needs are unfilled, profits are not made, (or Socialistic bureaucracies cannot function effectively). It is probably little more than academic and an example of either hypocrisy or ignorance to call pay for work alright if it is in the form of a government salary and use of various "expenses paid" facilities owned by government, but to label the same value and facilities greedy exploitation if they are obtained by doing the same work as an executive of a private corporation instead of a state owned enterprise.

4-33

It is important to observe here that so long as an equal value exchanging system of business is being used, it makes no difference whether one is using Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, or any other kind of ism, the same basic peculiarities still afflict the system arising from the basic arbitrary agreement of trying to accomplish or force equal value to be exchanged among entities that are fundamentally unequal. The indicated remedy by the ideas of this discussion (Difference Arranging Theory), is not as Marx suggests, that sufficient force or violence should be applied either to make everyone the same whether the people involved like it or not, and irrespective of whether such a procedure bears any resemblance to the basic laws or principles upon which nature is constructed, or more mildly in Capitalism at least level the playing field a little bit by confiscating a little from "the rich" and giving it away to "the poor", because without such exceptions being made to the basic idea of equal value exchanging, "equal value exchanging systems" seem to stagnate, break down, or its members become fed up with it continually failing regardless of the cause and abandon it or overthrow it.

4-34

In the terminology of this discussion, the indicated direction of a solution to the unworkability is "to treat each entity involved according to its true total, thereby arriving at an accurate graduated magnitude arrangement not omitting anything or anybody, and thereby, this theory suggests or predicts, alleviating or ending the conditions of deterioration or destruction arising from having failed to conduct one's affairs according to the principles of Difference Arranging instead of equalism. Whether such an approach will actually turn out to solve the problems of equation based business procedures, (that is to say, will applying these principles to human economics cause destruction in that area to diminish or end?), remains to be seen. In this chapter we are making a Difference Arranging analysis or "feasibility study" of current systems to see if such an approach might indicate problem solutions.

Go to next section.

Go to Contents

Last update March 10, 1998