OK, not formal, but oh so narrowly defined, as is so de rigeur with the conservatives. In Plain English we use the word “subordinate” to denote one’s underlings in the workplace. “Subordination or subjection of B to A” could, to most English speakers, mean that A is B’s boss.

On the one hand, statist ideology must render the violence of the state invisible, in order to disguise the affront to equality it represents. Hence statists tend to treat governmental edicts as though they were incantations, passing directly from decree to result, without the inconvenience of means; since in the real world the chief means employed by government is violence, threatened and actual, cloaking state decrees and their violent implementation in the garb of incantation disguises both the immorality and the inefficiency of statism by ignoring the messy path from decree to result.

Interestingly, the instrument of market allocation is referred to as an Invisible Hand. The intent in this nomenclature seems to be not so much a disguise as an assertion of the unknowability of the Hand. The Hand is, however assumed to be capable of passing directly from decree (aggregate cardinal utility) to result (an allocation of resources assumed to be maximally efficient) perhaps not without the inconvenience of means, but at least with the astonishing convenience of the “voluntary” (both euvoluntary and dysvoluntary) actions of individuals being in perfect accord with its objectives.

(long pause while I read the other document)

I should have known. Inspection of the pdf file (page 2) reveals that you saw the subordination objection coming; hence the phrase “forcible subordination.” For subordination within the market-matrix, we have only ourselves to blame. How humiliating. And how convenient for the Invisible Hand, and its lackeys, to whom it awards $ucce$$.