If our starting point is the center, it would make sense to speak of the capitalist, not in liberal bottom-up terms as a agent of private initiative regulated after the fact, but more as a kind of state ordered contractor. This is most directly the case with industries most closely linked to state imperatives, above all military but also health, internal policing, infrastructural, etc., imperatives—but even those industries and businesses that are not directly state sponsored or funded are so indirectly, as they are contracted by those business more directly connected with the state, or agents of the state at different levels. This contracting relation, then, is different than the direct delegation attempted in the Soviet-style states insofar as different businesses are allowed to compete for the contracts, allowing private enterprise to serve as a kind of realm of experimentation that the state can engage in cost-free, since if one contractor goes out of business it will always be possible to replace it, perhaps with remnants of the failed company, perhaps with a spin-off of a more successful company. Over time, monopolies and near monopolies will arise in the most essential industries, where long-term planning and consistency in standards is necessary, but it’s in the state’s interest never to let the monopolies be completely beyond challenge—we can see the emergence of an upstart company in some established industry as the state or some faction within it either pressuring the leading contenders to up their game or having decided they are unsalvageable. At the same time, these quasi-monopolies penetrate the state, which really can’t have any way of distinguishing between various initiatives without the guidance of established figures in the field.
I'm confused by the notion of an "economically self-supporting" governing institution, and not simply because we can't yet fully free ourselves from liberal terminology which believes in a discrete "economic" or "private" sphere. Maybe I am simply confusing the transitional process of instituting a political party or data/arbitrating institution from the hypothetical governing ends of the victorious party.
I don't think any king was ever not reliant on loans or taxes for the simple reason that if he relied on his land rents or the feudal obligations of his peasantry he was in a sense taxing and engaging in gift exchange with a sizeable population if not the whole kingdom. So what is involved in the centralizing transition of assets into data, working for the party or data/arbitrating institute, and becoming indebted to a juridical centre giving one the security of knowing that he can do without fungible assets (even as many have not yet given them up?), a juridical centre that will insure from each according to his means to each according to his needs? (e.g. how might, very hypothetically, the data figure for things like dating/marrying with hypergamic women who really "need" tokens of their status or virtues, like better houses - how do we escape our current anglosphere trap where so much of our capital is sunk into unproductive housing, even as the house in turn is debt or capital for someone, just often not, it seems to me, the potentially productive classes, or am i confusing the locus of initiative here...?) The party/data/arbitrating institute is providing a service that sustains itself, draws in and distributes resources, by its obviously desirable juridical and intelligence powers that lead people to convert their assets... (Maybe it should also begin as a church which shapes terms for marriage and divorce?) We will be engaged in some kind of data exchange with the centre but how is it not still a continuation of gift exchange and all the "elements of deferral" associated with it that we have forgotten somewhere in the feudal or tribal past, which will always risk being formalized or "devolved" as loans or taxes?
revivifying all the elements of deferral that old world had forgotten.
What in your opinion are some examples?
Can you point me to where in your work I may find old references of deferral as an explanation?