Cenocracy
America's Practice of Socialism and Communism

Cenocracy: On the path of a New Government —


At the fore-front of this essay, it should be noted that Socialism and Communism are frequently used interchangeably by different authors, and that some claim that Communism is a purer form of Socialism, while both (ideally) are forms of altruistic ideas suggesting the best form of government for all people. However, Communism, Democracy and Socialism have all been hapless victims to the abuses of many using a Banner of "Communism", or "Democracy" or "Socialism", to promote narrow-minded agendas. For example, those promoting a "Black Lives Matter" or "LGBTQ" orientation may use words such as "Democracy" and "Equality", but want the definitions of such to present a group-centered perspective. They do not want the Will of the People, via a National discussion and Referendum to participate in the decision making with respect to their claimed issues. They want everyone to agree with them, but they don't want to accept whatever agreement would be decided by those having to live with their preferences as to what laws there should be. In other words, far too often we find that Communism, Democracy and Socialism are being used to further underlying motives of selfishness, along with agendas of hypocrisy.



Here is one (video) illustration of a "Socialism" perspective that may be of interest to some readers, because it provides a list of government-sponsored programs:

This image is a link to the socialism-in-america video
5 ways America is already Socialist.


Here is another view of Socialism: The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online, by Kevin Kelly.


And let's add a few links to current Socialist perspectives:


History of Socialism
Socialist.ca (International Socialists)
The International Socialist Organization
Solidarity (A Socialist, Feminist, Anti-Racist Organization)
Socialist Party-USA list

In another view of Socialism, here is an image from Indybay News Item: Rasmussen Poll Indicates American Shift Toward Socialism, by Kristin Schall, that I changed some of the wording on, in order to create a better illustration of ideas being kicked around... some of which are not explicitly oriented towards Socialism, Communism, nor a maintenance of the Phoney Democracy. Democracy is "phoney/false" if it is defined as a "Peoples Rule/government", and yet the word "peoples" is being used to describe some minority— be it a King, Queen, Congress, Parliament, Corporation, religious council, etc...:


CapWork (71K) DemoCap (72K)

It is insanely incoherent for anyone to participate in advocating a Socialist doctrine, so long as it continues perpetrating a dominant obsessive adherence to a Marxian "worker" and "class"-differentiating orientation that focuses on "Capitalism" as some sort of evil. Too many so-called Socialists participate in a witch-hunt mentality against Capitalism... all because of Marx. Socialist ideas need to grow up, just as do both Communism and Democracy... Or more accurately stated, those using "Socialism" or "Democracy" or "Communism" or some religious doctrine to promote specialized agendas (feminism, sexism in the guise of LGBTQ preferences, people of "color"-centered ideology, etc.), need to apprehend a more comprehensive realization outside the scope of their cults. It's no wonder Socialism continues to get a bad reputation... since it is being used to further different flavors of ego-centralized narrow-mindedness. While we at Cenocracy.org can recognize the many social programs as being an expression of Socialism/Communalism, the practice in America and other so-called "democracies" throughout the world, are pseudo-democratic forms of Socialism that... given the tenor of their pseudo-democracy, are practicing Socialism with the intent of not trying to fall victim to the extreme social practices witnessed in the past. While such "democracies" exhibit their own formula of narrow-mindedness, they are not the ideologically constrained specialities seen in the different flavors of self-absorptions being advocated by different groups under a banner with the word "SOCIALISM" emblazoned in large letters.


We fully recognize that the engagement in a REVOLUTION may be the only recourse open to us... AFTER a comprehensive attempt is made to pursue change by way of legalized standards. Such attempts must be fully documented and recorded. This is necessary in order to established the precedent for engaging in riotous, rebellious and revolutionary tactics... if the status quo establishment does not abide by the rules of diplomatic communication to resolve differences brought about by the existence of social issues not being comprehensively addressed... if they are addressed at all. However, it must be fully understood that leadership may not even be aware that a problem exists, and if informed of such... does not mean they will then know what to do... even with an entourage of so-called expert advisers.


Very often, obstinance and dismissiveness are a means by which those in leadership positions give themselves time to try to understand what is going on, or hide from by way of some practice of denial or deniability... though they may never grasp the intricacies of the issues and would thus be unable to address the problems in any effective manner, anyway... because they are attached umbilically to a social and economic reality that is a made-up world centered on themselves and those sharing their type of ego-centricity. The situation is compounded when the governing structure is one in which it promotes limitations to problem solving. The current governing paradigm exhibits the conformation of what can be metaphorically described as a box that prevailing leadership can not think outside of. Tearing down the box and exposing millions of people to the similitude of a boundary-less social landscape may well produce conditions of varying physical and psychological ailments (not to mention severe economic disruption and possible global turmoil) that conventional ideological premises encapsulated in various Communist, Democratic and Socialist factions, are not prepared to deal coherently with. Instead, such ideological advocates would necessitate a rationale permitting them to justify resorting to the old standby of brutal enforcement to get everyone to adopt their perspective.


A promoted ideology must successfully compete against the prevailing status quo so that it can persuasively motivate those in authority to accept a perspective that is more promising, and does not make social conditions worse... or can not appreciably provide a view where any sacrifices that must be made, will be made by everyone, and that which follows will alleviate the tribulations incurred by any measure of sacrifice. We can not speak of liberty, of justice, of one or another improvement or advancement, if the definition thereof is to be arbitrarily conventionalized. We do not want to fight police officers or be met by a situation in which Military Law has been established. We want all forms of armed forces on our side. We want both intellectuals and grape-vine gossiping neighbors to be our advocates. We want both the down-trodden and the wealthy to back our play. We need them because our Revolution involves a desire to improve the lives of everyone.


Yet we can not do this if we are going to naively attack a way of life others have habitually practiced, because that is the way things are. Effective and long lasting Revolutions can be established by an exercise of patience and an openness to alter a belief if someone from "out of the blue" makes comments we have not considered. We can not practice the same obstinance and dismissiveness that we are fighting against. Granted it is sometimes difficult to absorb the contemplations of someone's socio-philosophical ideas if they are expressed in the cryptic vernacular some geniuses use as a shorthand because it is contoured within the construct of a worded mathematics equation due to a brain that works faster then they can convey in writing or conversation; we must nonetheless make an attempt to understand them, and adopt their intuited calculations if their ideas are better than ours. Such a caliber of revolutionist disposition is of great value to such geniuses. There is a mutual need that must be advantaged so that all may prosper because of.


One of the long-established status-quo habituations being used as a whipping board by Marxian influenced Communist and Socialist perspectives, is the practice of Capitalism. It's too bad Marx did not have the visionary perspicuity to see beyond his own day, age and era-specific life-style preoccupations which disposed him to enculturated forms of jealousy and envy... which made class distinctions all the more poignant. One can only imagine what level and form of insecurity prevailed in his psyche by having to depend on the graciousness of a friend (Engels) who family exhibited the very property owning (Capitalistic) life-style both he and Engles came to be resentful of, not to mention the influence of their Communism advocating associate and teacher known as Moses Hess, whose family was also wealthy. Though Marx later reject Moses' Utopian Socialism (and Hess himself later adopted a more practical ideology), the die was nonetheless cast concerning their impression that Capitalism was an evil that need to be rooted out because it was a greedy ogre practicing a philosophy of social fractioning into unequal class divisions; where resource distribution was used to expressed internalized prejudice as a projected discrimination. The word "Capitalism" was equated with a single-entry form of bottom-line bookkeeping that was amplified into a black and-white/good-and-bad dichotomy, instead of a double-entry form of leger keeping which then formulated the dichotomy into a trichotomy with the additions of a red-and-black entry orientation. Nonetheless, all that was seen was a series of dichotomies that was vacant of the realization that the existence of a trichotomy thus indicated the existence of a larger fundamental tripartite ideology prevailed... for those who were adept at appreciating such a consideration.


But so that this essay does not lead into a larger realm of discussion that many readers may not be familiar with anyway, the point of the matter is that the BAD characteristics were and still are focused more so on than the GOOD qualities of Capitalism, because those practicing Capitalism generally tend to be those exhibiting what can be described as an addiction... though most of us might call it greed. Governing laws allow and even encourages Capitalistic practices to engage in a resource accumulating addiction... or the desire for achieving a high level of addiction, as if it were competition in a sporting event like that practiced in the arenas of ancient Rome. While current tax structures are a form of this addiction, the return for the costs, or the received "High/buzz"... is a drug that has become too saturated, too "cut" with impurities (frivolous social programs), the social "fixes" can not supply the needed satisfactions, because the availability of presumed greater satisfactions are made available by manipulative advertisements used by businesses whose own addictions are permitted to go unchecked... so long as the government gets a cut of the profits. The government issues laws which enable companies to pursue unlimited greed, so long as there aren't out-cries of one or another monopolization (trust violation)... and thus promote the promise of unrealized satisfactions if the public buys or buys into a given advertising theme being used as propaganda for a given company's philosophy for increasing its motivations based on accumulating resources which may include the idea of diversification to increase its viability in different environments of potential profitability.


For some, Capitalism is a drug... or a weapon... or a tool. However, the latter distinction is not a topic typically addressed in Sociology, Economics or Psychology classes... because instructors participate in some measures of the "Capitalism drug trade" themselves... by competing for a larger share of the resource through publishing, public speaking, or consulting work, along with their salary. ("Moonlighting" is not specifically practiced by those with low wages.) We all do... though some of us have learned to recognize the addiction and can use it as a behavioral mechanism to counsel others into adopting more responsible financial management. And this is the counsel Revolutionists need to adopt. Capitalism can be used to benefit all of us, so long as we come to recognize its limitations and pitfalls. Just like there are different kinds of hammers which have specialized uses, all of them can be used accidentally incorrectly (such as when hitting one's thumb instead of a nail or a walnut)... or destructively intentional (such as smashing the windshield of a vehicle own by someone who tried to run us over or that we are jealous of because of a new vehicle they are flaunting in our face)... or it can be used to do the job it was intended for— being fully cognizant of the fact that tools can be refashioned to fit the needs. We do not have to continue using traditional tools as they were initially forged and applied. Tools can be redesigned to fulfill our needs. Hence, it is necessary to point out that:


CAPITALISM IS NOT THE PROBLEM!

Stop picking on Capitalism you Socialist bullies! Your anti-Capitalistic ideology makes you look like a lynch mob flogging a stuffed dead horse. Capitalism is a tool. Every single Socialist needs to get this point sunk into their skulls. And the vaguely defined "working class" is not to be held up as if it were some sacred icon to be worshiped as some sort of cure-all Executive-Legislative-Judicial triadic formula of governance... yet like prevailing governments, excludes the majority of the citizenry from any direct and comprehensive participation in "their" government. The working class is not some all seeing, all knowing, all powerful Heaven-sent entity deserving of every entitlement and deferment. Adopting such a perspective is little more than reverse discrimination against those who have discriminated against the majority... and yet their ability to discriminate was and is permitted by prevailing laws allowing an exercise of free will, so long as the government is given a take of the gains, and those given permission do not try to exercise more power over the populace than the government. In other words, the government does not like competition.


Because far too many workers have their heads (or hands) in their own (or another's) back pocket, they can not possibly be entrusted with some privileged position afforded by some sort of worker-controlled economy guided by some pathetically backward traditionalist practice of Socialism. It is disturbingly unfortunate that Capitalism has been turned into a weapon used by ignorant and disgruntled peasants called traditional Communism (C), Democracy (D) and Socialism (S). And yet, these governing ideas are not actually the culprits that need to be set up for public censure, because they have become the pawns of many unscrupulous characters who gravitate towards whatever politics will afford them some measure for expressing personalized socio-pathic inclinations... if some position in business or religion is not readily available for them to do so... perhaps due to barriers presented by personal eccentricities or a neuroticism that has not been conventionalized into some creative outlet.


These (CDS) social orientations have been brought up as three village idiots and turned into town drunks... inebriated by individualized nonsense embellished with a culturally personalized autocracy (Wordweb definition: "Offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually unwarranted power"), by way of rationalized justifications. Communism, Democracy and Socialism are not inherently evil. But they have been used by evil people as weapons against those who did not agree with them. The same goes for Capitalism. It is not inherently evil. It is a tool used by evil people that forge it into a "weapon of mass destruction", to advance agendas that do not incorporate an ethical premise of "altruism": (unselfish concern for the welfare of others.) Capitalism is not selfish, but many of those who advance an agenda of traditional "Capitalism": (private ownership/accumulation of assets such as property, money, labor, etc...); forge it into a weapon used to "persuade" (force, intimidate, bribe, etc...) others to do an individualized objective, and not a collectivized one... though it is necessary to recognize that some social-change advocates also use the word "collectivize" as a make-shift weapon instead of as a tool.


All governments, religions, sports enterprises, Boy/Girl scouts organizations, etc., are Capitalists. So are Socialist and Communist governments (with present Democracies as an obvious example of permitting and encouraging Capitalism to often be used in manners which are antagonistic to one or another given population). But every single Worker is a Capitalist as well. All of them collect some asset-bartering commodity (money, land, or whatever), that may be used to purchase something they think is of value to the maintenance and/or growth of their particular group, or themselves. The difference in the usage of Capitalism arises when money (land, or whatever), is applied for good, bad, or worthless reasons. Most often, the "choice" for redistributing taxes, is left up to government minorities such as a Legislature, which may have a legislative population (in-house culture) whose collective view is not comprehensively focused on allocating the money in the wisest or fairest manner for their Nation's peoples.


Just because we have a group of people elected to office by way of an election process providing the public with no better choices than the lesser of two evils, does not mean a legislature will exhibit any great intelligence, foresight, wisdom or incentive for fairness... as would be seen through the eyes of the public if they were asked to provide a collective opinion. And if this weren't bad enough, we have agencies (such as law enforcement or S.E.C.), that use their assigned authority to construct rules, regulations and procedures that will assist them in procuring more funds for their coffers through such a practice as confiscation of goods owned or held by someone alleged to have committed a crime, sometimes referred to as a carte blanche rule-of-thumb called "Civil Asset Forfeiture" (or simply "Asset Forfeiture").


government theft (35K)

In other words, abuses occur against the people by the government, in different ways, because the government gives itself the authority to do so... without the public's consent. Individuals within different agencies have the means to make life difficult for the public, because the public's ability to make direct changes is proportionately diminished according to the level of greed the government wants to practice. The old adage "Don't steal... the Government doesn't like competition", is felt by many to be an apt one pertaining to all governments. In fact, as the government learns more money making tactics from civilian criminals who exploit, undermine, or ignore laws, the government adopts the tactic and legislatively transforms it into an enforced "new" government model supported by one or another rationalization appealing to some purported common sense; such as protectionism (enforced car/health insurance), ponzi scheme (social security), confidence scams (frivolous campaign promises, perpetrating conflicts under the guise of some purported human rights violation or terrorism or "weapons of mass destruction" fairytale), etc... The lack of public consent, oversight and ordained legislative prowess (such as in the form of a Peoples Legislative Branch), occurs in all forms of government, and is used as a statement for qualification by means of a contrived precedent. In other words, because it does occur in all forms of government, this fact is then used as a precedent from which follows the necessity to act accordingly in like manner.


But the intent of this page is not specifically written to discuss the many social issues confronting the public. We want to take a moment to advocate a new approach to governance, because it is increasingly clear in many peoples eyes, the present so-called democracy... with its abusive uses of Capitalism, does a great deal of harm. The loss of jobs due to technology is one concern. Technology is being used to replace, and make obsolete, human labor. It is not being used as a substitute form of labor-saving-device that benefits people. Such a situation must be confronted head-on, first with lawful means, and then by any means necessary on behalf of the public acting in ever-increasing assertiveness, if necessary. But the fact remains, that if the government is unyielding to the public, riots, rebellion and revolution are the only methods left, unless "targeted motivation techniques" are employed to bring about purposive change.


Yet, the "purposive changes" are acknowledged as a goal that will never achieve perfection. While we can greatly improve upon the aforementioned "three village idiots", they are significantly limited in their abilities... particularly after being subjected to so much abuse. To try to retain them as they are, would be like taking in a stray (person) who has so much excess physical, emotional and mental baggage... they will have to be institutionalized in order for some greater semblance of civility to unfold in their personalities. Trying to use one or more of the three village drunks to transform the terrain into a Garden of Eden (Shangri-la, nirvana, paradise) or Heaven -on- Earth, is a childish perspective of a reality in which exists a decaying environment that our physiology and social institutions are forced to adapt to by way of following suit... In other words, the decaying environment is the role model which we must emulate, unless we remove the species from the planet. It is like living on the precipice of a sandpit that is slowly enlarging, and we have no place on Earth to retreat to. We can not "save the planet" from its own inherent limitations of being a "living organism". It has a life cycle that is consuming us, and we are trying to acquire some measure of equilibrium in order to forestall the inevitable... unless we accept the necessity of using a social philosophy with a greater expansiveness of appreciation, with respect to our national and global circumstances.



In a sentence retrieved from an article entitled "The Rebirth of Social Democracy" by Donny Gluckstein, we find a specific reference to the last remark in the foregoing, though it needs a little "Tweeking" (tweaking) to be a bit more reflective:


"This revival of enthusiasm for reformist politics is occurring under very different circumstances and there is no equivalent revival in reformist leadership or coherent ideology."


Here it is again with the tweek (tweek) applied: "This revival of enthusiasm for reformist politics is occurring under very different circumstances, but what is needed is an equivalent revival of reformist leadership with a coherent ideology."



Clearly the old perspectives of Communism/Socialism and Democracy being played out today, fall far short of and desired ideal... an ideal that very often is more representative of some personalized ideological mythology than conceptualizations based on social realities and realistic expectations.


There has never been any practice of an actual, "pure" Communism, Democracy, or Socialism on the scale to which advocates of today consider is a necessity to bring about a comprehensive well-being to all peoples. Everybody is getting bogged down by singularly personalized agendas that we forget to try to work things out together. Government controls become so centralized that the majority of the population is ostracized, disenfranchised, or otherwise manipulated into surrendering itself to the Will of a Few who rely on antiquated social philosophies from which to derive the reasons for a particular legislated direction. It can not be over-emphasized that it is supremely more difficult given the situation in which the publics throughout the world are largely unable to effect any changes according to their Collective Will. But in the event the people are enabled to be "re-enfranchised" in the legislative process (though they have never actually been enfranchised in any real sense), the public must try to keep their egos outside the doors of discussion.


By necessity, such discussions will have to be conducted according to some hierarchically-arranged "triage" model of addressing the multiple issues which confront us. For example, we all have basic needs, and one of these... needs based on capacity of food production, fresh water, clean air, etc., is the control of population growth. And yes, it is a difficult issue for those advocating a religious-based "be fruitful and multiply" perspective. But other issues will no doubt be similarly difficult for others, if their personal philosophies become scrutinized. Nonetheless, many people prefer to leave every decision up to a god or some earth-born representative... if not some conventionally established authority... even when the processes of authority create stalemating situations— giving the impression of being obstinate against doing anything of lasting value. In short, we have governments throughout the world that will not address the many issues the people want to be dealt with squarely in the face. But simply changing from one government official to another will not provide us with a profitable outcome in decision making ability. Hence, We need a New Government... a Cenocracy, which will Liberate Communism, Democracy and Socialism from the manifestly crippling doctrines currently in vogue.


However, democracy... as based on the current Capitalistic doctrine, can not be explicitly used to provide for the well-being of all, because Capitalism is promoted and practiced to be primarily concerned with individual accomplishments and acquisitions. It can be particularly self-centered, justifying any compassionless, act under the rubric "it's just business, so don't take it personal"; thus being able to mitigate any feelings of guilt for wrong-doing. Such a perspective allows for activities involving imperialism, collateral damage, colonialism, and various other disconnections with the lives of individuals or groups. While democracy (and its associated capitalism) is stated in terms of being a "peoples" government, the word "people" is selectively and arbitrarily... most often used to describe that which pertains to individuals or individual groups. Such individuals can be particularly intolerant of others whose alternatives suggest adopting a view that transfers selectivity to them... instead of those who are presently on the receiving end of some valued resource, or hold a commanding social position that engenders them with desired social entitlement. Very often we find an over-valuation of one's personal philosophy as a compensatory activity that acts as a type of camouflage for feelings of inadequacy or insecurity, and claim their perceived problems are due to a specific practice of inequality... though once such a practice is addressed, additional perceptions of supposed inequality are compounded as expected interest to be received over time.


For example, the "Black Lives Matter" and the "LGBTQ" Community -of- Colonies orientations, do not like alternative views to be presented in opposition to their philosophies, particularly those that can not be incorporated into some already established "core" criteria. In the case of the "Black Lives Matter" orientation, an "All Lives Matter" has surfaced to counter some of the arguments being supported, because such ideas suggest a growing racist and Black Nationalist motivation. In the case of the LGBTQ orientation, there is an historically standing perception that the espoused "sexual orientation" preference is neither religiously sanctioned nor biologically productive for the well-being of the species... though other disagreements prevail as well. While such disagreements may not be overtly visible in some situations, they can quickly become such, if they are confronted by a growing imposition to accept, without question or alternative consideration, any view a person finds morally or socially reprehensible.


The BLM and LGBTQ orientations claim that dissenting views are neither fair nor helpful to their "cause", and want them to be silenced... by any method and manner they can bring to bear. When such views continue, they are frequently assigned with some dichotomously attired vilification (Black -versus- White, Gay -versus- Straight, etc.). And though they may profess an interest in superficially discussing an inclination towards advancing democracy, they actually do not want a "Democratic" approach to be carried out with respect to the issues they aspire to address. Their so-called "Democracy imperative" has a Fascist (singularly authoritarian) ideological premise. They don't want to practice an "Actual Democracy" according to defining laws by the Will of an entire Populace, they want to practice a Selective Democracy... like the philosophy of a card shark, gambling casino, lottery, or "Representative government", in order to more easily ensure any outcome is favorable to their group's collective views (typically defined by yet another internalized minority of people)... and let the bulk of a Nation be damned for its collective point of view... a view that has never actually been tabulated... and is merely assumed by the practice of some government-sponsored practice that may become established as a tradition and generally accepted as a given. Such ideologues (of a Few) want everyone to support them in their beliefs, but do not inturn want to support the ideas of everyone (the Many). In other words, they very often exhibit an avowed hypocrisy because they want to contort every perspective to abide by their distorted world-view.


In fact, as an example of this authoritarian ideology, some LGBTQ colonies are trying to use their tactics of "persuasion" to convince law makers that there should be a law against clergy being able to use their pulpits to voice opinions contrary to those being advocated by the LGBTQ's (the Lost Girls and Boys Totemic Quorums). It would seem that freedom of speech is not high on the list of interests for such an authoritative orientation... just as it wasn't high on the list of Hitler, Mussolini, Kings/Queens, and various religious leaders of the past. Indeed, if the LGBTQ's had their way, any and all who voiced opposition might well be interred in a camp set apart from the prying eyes of the public and media, just like the Nazis did to the Jews, and had similarly forced homosexuals to wear a pink triangle... much in the analogical manner of the self-obsessed LGBTQ community -of- colonies when it pins the word "homophobic" on those whom they dislike and want to be forced into silence by over-bearing ridicule... like Roman soldiers and members of the public are said to have done to Jesus on the way to a contrived public execution arrived at by way of a conspiracy. But others such as Socrates and Joan of Arc also paid witness to a similar form of prejudice and bigotry... all sanctioned by the laws of corrupt Nations that met their fateful end, all because certain minorities were allowed to expand their ideological infections without being taken to task for underlying motivations.


In describing the case for the presence of Socialism and Communism is America, please understand this is in no way encouraging or emphasizing that you should join either an American-based Socialist or Communist organization (nor Fascist-flavored movement as previously described)... which, in the case of Socialism, are typically based on an orientation to empower workers. Such a perspective no doubt gets its impetus from a Marxian perspective, and is thus not altruistic enough, since societies have millions of people who do not... per sey, "work" in historically conventional terms (such as the retired, old, infirm, disabled, criminal, artistic, intellectual, and yes, the lazy too).


It is rather absurd to think that by simply supplanting a Capitalistic-based democracy with a Democracy-inspired Socialism within the same government architecture, that the existence of multiple social problems are going to simply vanish and never come back. Some social problems can not appropriately be lumped under a heading of inequality... particularly when no clear definition of "equality" has been established. Whereas it is easy to do so when the definition is whimsically alterable by any and all claiming one or another "right", let's make an attempt to define it. Descriptions like "sameness" or "alikeness" is the imposition of a social cloning technique, that uses semantics to create others into a given representative image. But where then, is uniqueness and individuality if some sort of cloning is most desired in terms of an arbitrarily standardized "equality"? If such an equality is most desirable, then this adoption may well be that which precedes the adaptation for accepting a biological effort at producing "equality"... like a bee hive with three class divisions (Queen- Drone- Worker). Is this the equality humanity should be striving for? And just because a tripartite organization of Priestly- Warrior- Craftsperson (worker) has been identified as a (Dumezilian identified) Indo-European sociological echo through many centuries and different places, does not mean this has to be accepted as a definitive imperative to copy for still more centuries.


We are trying to point out that, under the guise of a presumed Democracy, there is a verifiable reliance on a Socialist and Communist practice of government... or there wouldn't be any social programs available to citizens... though the presence of social programs is taken for granted, and they are assumed to be the result of purposeful democratic action (instead of the haphazard route which has been used)... by those and their supporters who don't have the guts to admit there is a wide-spread presence of Socialism and Communism in America. To do so would require them to abandon their illusions formulated by the embraced practice of a pretend democracy. Yet, this in no way advocates the adoption of a Socialist model of thinking obsessed with a "worker"-focused empowerment, and trying to artificialize one's perspectives by lumping the perceived disparities amongst multiple groups advancing their own agendas, into a presumed formidable force.


However, this does not mean Americans are intentionally practicing either a Marxist or Marxist influenced model of Socialism, or any of the previous flavors of Communism that been tried out (such as the "Red" doctrine embraced by the Chinese or that of Russia in decades past)... though there are similarities and analogical references which can be pointed out, depending on one's intellectual orientation. Simply because there is wide-spread evidence that Americans (and other democracy-claiming peoples) are applying Socialist models of governance to address the needs of a growing public, this does not mean we have to abandon an interest in Democracy. However, the so-called "Democratic-Socialism" or "Socialist-Democracy" being suggested by those referring to the ideas proposed by Bernie Sanders (and others), is a superficial accounting of both Socialism and Democracy trying to be adopted for a Communistic (communal) setting.


But let us be more definitively explicit: We can not have a worker dominant democracy... or this will leave out the creatively artistic, literary and intellectual individuals. Indeed, if this were to have taken place in Marx's time, his ideas might never have been promoted... since he was not a "worker" in the conventional sense of laboring for his sustenance... for most of his life. If it hadn't been for Friedrich Engels, he might well have died in relative obscurity. We can not have a society whose economic enterprises are comprehensively dominated by those workers within different industries; since objectivity for growth, for envisioning a new path... often takes place when one is set at a distance (physically, or emotionally, or intellectually) from the common throng of a given social organization.


The life of Marx is but one example of many whose "empirical distance" from a subject of study/research assisted in the maintenance of an objectivity necessary for the development of creatively defined insights... even if such insights are not necessarily appreciated in a researcher's own life-time... or others plagiarise such ideas as their own... particularly by those who are recognized in a particular field of research and have support for their claim of origination of an idea by peers who are similarly influential. No less, we can not be solely preoccupied with trying to sustain humanity on the planet Earth, since it is progressively deteriorating and all life forms are being forced to adopt living strategies which enable them to exist on a decaying planet, in a decaying solar system, within a decaying galaxy. Our developing sociological philosophies are adjustments... by way of adopted rationalizations, being made to the incremental decays. Communism, Democracy and Socialism must look beyond their conventions of preoccupation. A much larger philosophical premise for sociological application must be adopted.


It is rather unfortunate that Socialism and Communism have been given bad reputations by those (typically in presumed "democratic" settings) who assume they are nefarious activities... based on historical references of their appropriated uses by those whose personal agendas created situations where poor models thereof were practiced and used as vehicles to promote ulterior motives promoting conflicts of interest with others usually advocating a "pure" Capitalistic practice as the best form of government with a viable economy. But, the Socialist/Communist practices in American society are likewise creating conflicts with those whose Capitalistic interests are more concerned with making a buck than the well-being of the public. Such a circumstance can be related to the production of both a Massive National debt with a mounting problem needing to be addressed (see: I.O.U.S.A.), and concerns for hyperinflation (see: Preparing Americans for Hyperinflation),... even if the authors of these two videos do not explicitly reference such a connection. Both concerns can be addressed if we were to adopt a hierarchical needs categorization of spending, buying, and our overall economics.


Quite obviously, we can not continue with the same fiscal policies that we have. But such policies are aligned with the type of government we have, which is directly bound to the necessity of having a National social Philosophy involving the Will of the People, without indulging in ambiguities like the current model of government does. The present government is based on the lie that we have a Prominent Democracy, where in fact we have a prominent Socialism and Communism being labeled a democracy. There is very little actual democracy being practiced in terms of social governance. Yet, many of those advocating a Democracy might well despise any notion that we alter our government into a labeled Socialism or Communism... even though such a condition already exists... in deed, but not social acknowledgment. Clearly, because of the reality of our circumstances, it is necessary for us to develop a New formula of government. We are describing the idea of a New Government with the word "Cenocracy".


A Marxist model of Socialism will not work for the American temperament, just as it would be inappropriate for the temperaments of others in different countries. The old models of Socialism and Communism (as well as Democracy) must be placed into the dust bins of history. They are wholly inadequate, because they are based on ideas formulated into doctrines dealing with social issues interpreted to be problems, when many social issues are actually symptoms arising from the limiting characters of a governing structure acting as an architectural template restrictive to needed growth, we must build anew. While we cherish the archeologically inclined sentimentality of thinking all things old should take precedence over all things being proposed; we can adopt an ideological incentive for preservation while at the same time permitting experiments for development take place.


Not all things being developed, despite vast sums of money and expertise being applied, are as valuable as they are proposed by those who have a vested interest in the construction. Many constructions are little more than as showcases to exhibit the different talents which were applied to the construction effort. The final result, in many cases, turns out to be a nonsensical absurdity with respect to usefulness of functionality that may have just as easily served with a greatly reduced budget that reduced the presence of excessive embellishments. Some projects are like adding decorations to toilet paper or company logos to undergarments whose purpose is to prevent soiling of outwear. Far too many funded programs, if scrutinized, might be viewed as embellishments or decorations used by Congressional representatives to be used to fill up a page to be presented to constituents as a means of offering a picture that they are doing things of value for them... when the money used could be better spent elsewhere.


While many things funded may be hailed as being innovative and the baby face of some considered future, it is an constructed idea that is usually imposed on others. People are very often required to adapt to a new idea, like cars, planes, education systems, cell phones, etc., and do not themselves frequently effect any alteration in the design except to cause an increase in size... such as distribution, functional components, etc. When the size is found to have a structural capacity limitation, someone must come up with a new idea, or face the possibility of revenue loss because copycat enterprises usually occur, and offer alternatives that the initial design did not provide. Similarly, the traditionally- held ideas of Communism, Democracy and Socialism show themselves to have limitations to growth, based on inherent designs. This does not mean everything associated with these ideas are bad, it means we need a different foundation that uses the ideas... where appropriate... and not solely rely on each of them as a competing cornerstone.


Just as Americans practice their own flavor of presumed democracy, other nations have their preferred sociological tastes as well, though such (democratic) tastes are frequently modeled on their perceptions of what they think Americans or Britains practice... even though both situations are actually pretensions of an Actual Democracy— typically conjured up by some sort of slogan such as "Of the people, By the people and For (all) the people", in order to imply the people themselves are in control of a so-called "their" government and "their" laws; when the people are actually kept at a disenfranchised distance... and can only "participate" by siding with one or another opinion being espoused by some would-be, wanna-be, or established official. Both Americans and Britains practice such a superficial model of democracy as it is, the general population doesn't appreciate what an Actual Democracy really entails. Such a democracy has never before been carried out on the scale of a large nation. It will require redesigning the underlying governing structures to include a provision for the public to have its own legislative branch, to which all other functions of government will defer to according to the collective Will of the People via an established model of Referendum that will not be inherently designed to obstruct, obfuscate and other-wise disenfranchise the public from asserting itself to make corrective action and choose more viable social paths for their respective nations.


To give the reader an idea of what is meant by the practice of Socialism and Communism in America (noting that Communism is referred to as a superior form of Socialism by its adherents), let us first describe these ideas in terms of adopted social strategies for the well-being of the public, as evidenced by a particularly brief ensemble of different social programs:


Public Schools and school lunch programs.

{There is a growing perspective that Colleges, Universities and Trade schools should be included. However, the problem remains that there are not enough jobs for everyone. A college degree, a Trade school certificate nor a highschool diploma are magic wands for getting a person to be hired in the job they want or are educated/trained for. And neither are On-the-job training opportunities readily available for most people.}


Social Security.

{This is an available revenue for the government if it has a desire ("need") irrespective of rules or regulations guarding against such a usage, and a majority in Congress votes on its appropriation. This fund is sometimes referred to as a (Protectionist) Insurance program instead of being described as a temporary tax or enforced savings account; though others have called it a Ponzi scheme, since those being paid get their funds from younger workers who are forced to pay into the system... and even though the S.E.C. (Securities and Exchange Commission) are supposed to protect the public from such schemes. Thus, there is a double-standard of law being practiced and accommodated through rationalization.}


Public infrastructure such as Amtrak, bridges, buses, dams, roads subways, tunnels.

{Sometimes accompanied by user fees.}


Public Recreation centers, parks and trails.

{Sometimes accompanied by user fees.}


Medicade and Medicare (including medication coverage)

(Frequently accompanied by user fees called co-pay.)



National Health Care (other than Medicade and Medicare)

{At present all national health care provisions involve some complicated means of determining eligibility. The National Health care coverage program called "obamacare", forces the public to have some sort of medical coverage or be subjected to a penalty via the tax system, if they are a non-user or non-contributor, and is thus perceived as a protectionist racket. It is a program that has caused many problems for the public, not least of which are increasing costs. The program was neither well thought out nor accepted by the public via a National Referendum.}


Here is one proposal being offered as an alternative:


A National Health Program for the United States: A Physicians' Proposal

Public Hospitals and Clinics

{Public funding usually occurs through healthcare subsidies.}


Public subsidy of Churches and Charities (non-profits) through tax exemption

{A 10% tithing request is another way of describing a 10% tax, even if it is called a "donation" or what the donation is used for. Such "donation" social atmospheres frequently employ various "encouragement" tactics to get people to support a church or charity, whose usage of the funds may be cataloged in terms of percentages based on how much is taken in... and may be exaggerated by various embellishments denoting wealth or some appealing extravagance or virtue. However, how much is actually collected and exactly how the funds are dispensed, are usually described in the same manner of cloaked concealment that lotteries engage in. The public neither knows exactly how much is collected, or how every penny is actually spent. Both are variations of socially accepted confidence scams, regardless of what rationalizations are employed to support such views, and thus placate any feelings contrary to one's intentioned expectations for engaging in honesty.}


Public subsidy of (typically) large Corporations, institutions and other businesses.

{This type of subsidy is not always wide public knowledge until such institutions need to be bailed out of a crisis caused either by managerial incompetence, some unforeseen Natural disaster, or government produced financial turmoil. In this way, entities functioning in the private sector, are frequently provided with a politically defined arbitrary motivations to be included in this type of public-funded insurance program protecting them against failure (that might result in the loss of numerous jobs). In such a political climate, for presenting themselves in a position of being perceived as a socially-necessary commodity, they can take business risks at public expense... even if the whole of the public receives little or marginal return on the "loan".}


Student education Grants and loans.

{Grants do not have to be paid back while loans do. Loans that need to be repaid are not typically provided any form of "employment deferment" which would enable a person to have a job before the loan needed to be repaid, or held in abeyance until full-time work was secured.}

Free Web Guide to all U. S. Government Grants and Loans Benefiting Students!


Welfare.

{Eligibility typically involves some "means test". In other words, if you have the means of supporting yourself, which should include job availability and one's marketable employability; then you do not qualify for assistance. Some States have stricter rules and regulations than others.}


Public Defenders.

{Often accompanied by a public perception of being significantly less competent than those who work better for you if you pay them out of your own pocket. They get paid whether they win or lose a case and can not ask for more money if your case requires more than what some refer to as a "perfunctory legal effort". Public defenders are frequently associated with the idea that they are individuals who score poorly on bar exams and are therefore not desirable for those whose legal abilities can help them sustain a viable clientele by an established reputation of providing excellent service.}

Subsidized Housing (Senior Citizen/Section 8, etc..)

{Eligibility and amount of subsidy varies according to program and those being served.}


Subsidized Government work force (and Contractors)

{While this example is not typically itemized in any government accounting, though contracted examples may be in some circumstances, it needs to be addressed. If the public were to scrutinize the rationale being used to justify the salaries and perks for given government workers (such as those working for Los Alamos Labs) and the fact that Congress can vote itself in a raise by way of adjusted Cost Of Living Allowances, even though most of the public can't, the public would be quick to agree that money can be saved by addressing this problem area. In addition, the issue of government contracts being given to but a few bidders in given areas, that contractors are not held accountable for cost over-runs (that they knew a given project would incur), and that some contracts take place by a no-bidding option or secret bidding option, or some other criteria were a particular contractor is given a contract over others based solely on political predispositions; we have another situation where government costs can be significantly reduced.}


Funding of Federal, State, And Local Programs

Note: "User fees" which accompany programs in different ways with different terms, are a type of double-taxation. And if there are not enough user fees to sustain a program, such as Amtrak, government thus establishes itself as a business owner who frequently acts like an absentee landlord who has left someone, often incompetent, in charge of operations... but funds the program with resources that might be better off being used elsewhere. Because there is no established "hierarchy of funding needs" to act as a guide (instead of as a deferred-to rule-of-thumb), there is no overall rationality employed to be used in preventing mismanagement of benefit expenditures which, if supported by mere political incentives, can be frivolous.


Now here's a look at the Military as a beneficiary of tax dollars:


military (60K)



There are so many programs being funded without a public-governed (democratic) oversight guided by the philosophy of a reality that resources and resource-generating avenues are limited; that an unstructured Socialist approach, like that being used by many so-called Democratic governments, can be analogously similarlized to the practice of an irrational model of a guaranteed income for everyone... or at least particularlized enclaves of given populations. (Multiple disparate individuals and groups are being given a means to address given issues, even if the issues may be symptoms of a larger unrecognized problem.) Whereas a guaranteed income idea has its merits, these merits can dissolve when the sensibility of the program's intent is not subject to goals that are monitored and expected... by those who have no bias, yet are not callously disinterested one way or another.


For example, if we were to give $1,000 a month to millionares, they would not be appreciably helped nor hindered, yet a poor person would be helped in terms of letting them decide how to use the money (for good or ill); yet the help being generated for them might be less valuable then the help for provisioning a program that promotes personal viablility in multiple social areas (training, education, health, shelter, etc.). Government funding of prorams is also problematic when such practices do not incorporate an antempt to comprehensively provide for the provision of analyzing what (good or bad) situations may arise unexpectedly, because those involved may not be the most objective analysts. Those in government work in relation to job security over the span of their lives, and not necessarily due to an incentive based on something other than a "janitorial maintenance" perspective or interest. Those involved may be supportively biased towards their employment within a given social program, even if it causes needless harm elsewhere (an unforseen or overlooked social rippling effect), or does not help others or the economy as expected. (In other words, we need an accurate and honest cost -to- benefit ratio analysis.)


List of US Federal Government Funding Programs (2005) Abraham Maslow hierarchy (8K)

In the above link of listed Federal programs, we do not see them categorized by a Hierarchy of needs from the perspective of humanisic psychology, where increasing levels of individual (and group) sophistication may be advantaged to grow and mature. In such a psychology, which is analogically applicable to sociological class differentiations via a nomothetic approach (study of groups), or idiographic approach (study of individuals); a fulfillment of basic (primitive) needs must occur first before growth of an individual and thus growth of the group can occur... (in this instance the growth of a culture or society). In other words, fulfilling the basic necessities of citizens (such as clothing, shelter, healthcare, nutrition) should come first, and then the funding of alternate programs... even though circumstances can arise which require alterations in the hierarchy for given instances such as a person's (or society's) immediate safety taking precedence over whether a person's/group's dietary needs are taking place. (It is rather futile to fund a food program if a person or group is in immediate danger.) The illustration to the right is an example of a "hierarchy of needs" conceptualization that does not necessarily have to take this same form or formula when applied to the need for establishing a philosophy of funding social programs, as well as for developing an economic policy. Visionaries can sometimes recognize the needs of a group that are more pressing than those which satisfy immediate gratification. A hierarchy of needs philosophy must be amenable to revision based on ideas which may be generated from a repository of appreciation that may not be easily verifiable... though, nonetheless, the overall group must collectively decide what is best for itself.


In other words, an immediate need for safety can take precedence over whether a person has under garments.) Yet, a humanisic hierarchy of needs must include a hierarchy of needs for the Nation, based on a formula that the entire populace has discussed and then voted into law... a law that can be collectively altered by the Will of The People as they see fit... and the definition of "people" can not be primarily based on the old Socialist notion of "worker" empowerment. In such a perspective, individuals and society are viewed as being organismically dynamic and not static... as they presently are by way of being disembodied from being a functional and direct part of the governing process. However, we can not adopt such a perspective in the same dogmatic manner that die-hard followers of Marxian ideology accept... as in the notion that their brand of Socialism is scientifically based... and follows a course of inevitable development that "must" take place like some Natural Law— and thus must be adhered to as if it is God ordained.


A "user fee"- based economy is inherently flawed, because uses of goods variably swing through fads and disuse due to changes in public education, interest, technology, etc., thus requiring that such an established economy be subsidized in order to maintain the level of activities (production/employment) at near, or the same levels when the public made greater usage of a given commodity. Thus, we must move away from a "user-fee" based economy to that which garners a greater appreciation of our humanity. It can not be an economy based on Capitalism, because companies come and go... and are frequently used as tax write-offs by those who want to advantage themselves by exploiting loops holes in laws. People "fudge numbers" in their book keeping, steal, cheat, swindle, undermine, cut corners, etc... just as they are honest, law-abiding, truthful, good, kind, generous, charitable, etc... The current tax system, aligned with the current form of Capitalistic economy, undermines the whole system, while providing advantages to those who recognize and take advantage of loop holes. Sometimes, loop holes are deliberately structured into laws in order that they can be taken advantage of by those who are privy to the intricacies of the structure, or those who are particularly adept at "reading between the lines" of a written law, rule or policy; or are more intelligent than those who initially constructed a given law with the idea that they and their interested parties were smarter than everyone else... or could take "first advantage" of one or more loop holes, before others caught on.


Along with an economy based on Capitalism, there is a "value-based economy"... where "value" is defined by a few, such as a Legislature, instead of the Collective Will, who would thus be in a position to allow for individuals or groups to present a case for altering the definition for a given "value" adopted by a governing minority, in order for an alternative idea to be included as a variable that can improve the over-all equation of the value-system in usage. Hence, because "value" is a rather subjective term, and humans are the subject in question, everyone in a greatly expanded "value-system economy" would be required to contribute a single standardized tax. All "user fee" taxes would be abolished, since in many cases, user fees do not appropriate enough funds to permit a given usage to be self-sustaining... like the idea that subsidies to businesses are a temporary loan needed to assist a given enterprise over a "rough patch", but they will eventually get back on their feet, and can thus repay the loan with interest.


As it is, the government acts like a bank, policing unit (via military action), and numerous other civilian-related activities, without any interest or inclination in giving deference to a public over-sight and public ability to make corrective changes. Instead, any over-sight is government controlled so as to advantage itself despite any irrationality it may practice. Clearly there is the need for adopting a new formula of democracy which includes a stated acknowledgment that it practices variations of Socialism and Communism. It is of a cathartic necessity that the government represent a greater openness, accountability, and self-definition... while adopting the convention of needing the public's direct assistance by way of a New Government. The present government is incapable of solving problems when it is part of the generating force of those problems, and yet continues to be in denial of its participating role. Any admission must be attended with an alteration in the form of democracy being practiced, since many a sociopath and psychopath will use confession as a means of manipulating others who think that expressed emotion is a prime indicator of purposive change to take place for the better... thus making them susceptible because their defensive assertiveness is disarmed and amenable to re-contoured lies, misrepresentations, story-telling, "narrative (filibuster-like) inebriation", etc...


An expanded value-based economy of funding can not be truncated into being a "Worker-based Representation" as is expressed in conventional obsessions of Socialism which get their impetus from Marxian doctrine. This is little more than switching from the current lousy "Representative-generating" electoral system to a system of Representation by those who are "elected" simply because of their presence in a work-place. This is both ridiculous and rather pathetically stupid. It's no wonder millions of people reject Socialism and its Communism counter-part. While a work force is undeniably valuable, no available work force can generate an economy without the presence of a recognizable employment situation that was initially brought into reality by a single person or group. The singularity of a person, the selectivity of a group, and the majority of a work force population are all important. Some businesses do not thrive after the death of the person who imitated the company in the first place. Often-times, workers nor those left in charge... have the wherewithal to sustain the business.


Everybody living today is an after-thought of those who came before us. And in some cases, we of today were not given much thought at all. Those in the past most often are not able to conceptualize what those in the future will be faced with. Nonetheless, some make guesses, and provide for a situation wherein those of the future can adapt a simply idea to their individual needs. However, there are those that prefer to retain the simpleness of some ideas instead of permitting the necessary revision and redevelopment to occur, because they have learned how to exist in the conditions of a simplistic environment, instead of one which is best for a multiplicity of individuals. In other words, they have difficulty in adapting to growth or alternative ideas directed towards growth. Workers can be just as self-centered and unyielding in their respective business enterprise... that they are personally vested in, as can those whose lives exist for the most part in the culture of a government branch or department.


Humans are not all-perceiving (omnipercipient), all-knowing/wise (omniscient), nor exist everywhere at once (omnipresent), which would enable a single person to perform the function of being a desirable "philosopher-king". We have limited understanding, limited knowledge, limited memory, limited comprehension, limited feelings, limited sensitivities, limited compassion, limited interests, limited curiosity, limited tastes, limited physiology, limited energy levels and a limited lifespan. And because we as a species were born on a planet headed for decay... unless we learn to live in space or in another galaxy, the existence of our species is limited as well. We are not gods and must rely on alternative views from each other in order to increase our survival value and chances of growth far beyond our limitations. We can not be so limited in our thinking as to pursue a future which embodies a philosophy of accepting a fate determined by our present limitations. We must have a collective vested interest in pursuing a greater expression of ourselves as a conscious being... whatever this may mean a hundred, thousand, millions, if not billions of years hence.


We must fully invest ourselves, with adequate funding, with a definitive pursuit towards maximizing the fullest usage of our available skills. Unfortunately, the current model of governance does not fully advantage itself of the nation's available talents. Instead, our leaderships (business, education, government, religion, etc.), are so convinced of a presumed personal uniqueness and merit, when the realization is made that such a value is not forthcoming, they have to artificially create a circumstance where their presumed talents can be exhibited, or insure the development of conditions which suppresses the talents of those in the public from over-shadowing them. It is like a movie producer who contours a script so that the mediocre talents of a given actor/actress, director or stage-crafting person, can be permitted to show their best, yet their best is not the best available. Many a historically recognized person or event is artificialized into being presented as a "greatness", or "talent", or "genius" is based solely on ego... not on fact. Like Bush Jr. claiming himself to be a "War President" in order to award himself the distinction of being something of historical value, which is used to over-shadow all the many terrible things he and his cohorts were involved in.


In an expanded value-based economy as a modeled guideline for determining what and how areas of interest (defined need) are to be funded, an expanded democratically oriented Socialist-Communalism (of which we already practice in deed but not word); will require the public to have both the ability to discuss and vote on everything that is to be funded (without being subjected to a "Representative" model of vicariousness that can be used to diminish, distort or disenfranchise the Will of the People); though some items such as education, the general welfare, social security, health care, the military, etc., will initially be viewed as standardized social needs... even though they may well be altered as they become comprehensively reviewed by the public. Such a "value-based" economy system will need to make a standardized provision that recognizes the need for an eclectic or "visionary" fund in order to accommodate the realization that advances in art/music philosophy/religion and science/technology... as well as futuristic ideas not yet labeled by any present day vocabulary... need to be respectfully funded. Only the insight of the entire populace, individually and collectively assessed, can provide the assent for a particular need.


Far too often, old ideas are cast into the verbal trappings of a given era and do not offer a new perspective. With respect to current Socialist/Communist directions applied in overtly described Democratic settings, such perspectives generally seek to replace one political philosophy with another, but do not appreciably alter the underlying government structure. The governing structure in America needs to be reconstructed involving the addition of a "Peoples Legislative Branch". If we continue to use the present one, we find ourselves confronted by desires for political change that advance programs involving an over-emphasis on worker-related minutiae (inequalities involving gender, race, etc...), without viewing them as possible symptoms of larger considerations involving the need for a new government structure. For example, the architecture of a small house can readily contribute to problems for occupants who have little free space for privacy. Having the group move into a more accommodating structure would solve many of the complaints which are over-valued because they are personalized and "ego-centralized". Though the example is rather simplistic, it provides insight into accepting the possibility that what we may be describing as a central problem, is but a symptom occurring in conjunction with others, which can be more adequately addressed by confronting the need for a reconstruction. In short, we can engage in a different formula of society— of social governance, with associated rules which can benefit the needs of individuals and those of the nation as well... not to mention our species.


Marx felt he had discovered the economic laws of social motion, which one might no doubt consider that through such a consideration, he spoke of an imagined self-importance aligned with the stature of Newton's three laws of motion, from which the law of Universal gravitation was formulated. Time and again history has provided us with examples of those who jump to conclusions that, when applied experimentally, often present us with the clarification and conclusion that all was not as one had supposed. Unfortunately, the realization that Marx's ideas were wrong in many respects, were not discovered until years later, after his death. It is like a person believing themselves to be some historical figure, but die before being confronted with the truth that they were not all that they imagined themselves to be. Such a perspective of self-importance makes Marxian-styled Socialists both intolerant of alternative ideas and characteristically adopting a bureaucratic dictatorship of centralized control, if and when they come to power. They want the details of a sociological venture to follow the course which they imagine needs to occur in order to validate some internalized structural arrangement, instead of permitting a flexible structure to be adapted according to the vagaries of the personalities of those involved with the construction of a greater ideal, of which the only consensus may occur in word alone, by way of individualized interpretation.


In such a psychological-based sociology as a Nationalized philosophy, it is recognized that the present form of Democracy being practiced in America by its standard "Republic" notion of "Government by Representation", is a formula of democracy occurring in a vacuum. The people are sucked into believing they are participating in a democracy advocating an OF, BY, and FOR All the People government, when the "People" are characteristically diminished in their capacity to effect changes by direct application. A Republic form of so-called "democracy" is particularly intolerant of the public's collective Will, otherwise all branches and departments of government would be directly answerable to the people; including the selection of Supreme Court Justices who would thus be answerable to the People, and could be removed anytime the people decreed. Such is what a "peoples government" rightly entails, instead of the word "people" being legally designated to label various minorities whose own volitions can direct the actions of an entire Nation, justified by the exploited notion of a "Representative government". America's form of government is a "vacuum democracy"... a rather deep, dark black hole that disenfranchises the public from effecting laws by the direct Will of the People. It sucks the people into an irrelevance embellished with educationally adopted standards for convincing the people this is the best formula of governance and they should yield to its program for ostracizing them, and being led by the nose by those whose actions are an undeclared assertion that the people are too stupid to run their own lives better than the nonsense they are subjected to by laws imposed upon them by others.


Let us precede our short list of examples with definitions of Communism, Democracy and Socialism:


Communism- the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how Communism differs from Socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists' adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.


Democracy- literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek de-mokratia-, which was coined from de-mos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.


Socialism- social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. Above References from the Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013; occurring in separate articles on Communism, Democracy, Socialism.


Yes, there are different variations of these governing forms played out according to the mindset of those obtaining the role for promoting a given perspective thereof. For example, America's flavor of Democracy is one based on a Republic form of "Representative" government:


Republic- form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from Direct Democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics. ("Republic" reference from the Encyclopedia Britannica)


Direct Democracy- Also called pure democracy, forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making in contrast to indirect or representative democracy, based on the sovereignty of the people. This can happen in the form of an assembly democracy or by initiative and referendum with ballot voting, with direct voting on issues instead of for candidates or parties. Sometimes the term is also used for electing representatives in a direct vote as opposed to indirect elections (by voting for an electing body, electoral college, etc.) as well as for recalling elected office holders. Direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but in modern times, it means most often specific decision-making institutions in the broader system environment of representative democracy.


...In other words, the idea of a "Peoples Government" is having its definition altered to coincide with the notion of Representation, in order to keep the people from being able to recognize any other flavor of Democracy other than the present one being played out in different versions in different countries. It is a type of propaganda which perpetuates the practice of governing decisions to be left in the hands of a few who can thus manipulate the public to do their bidding, while still claiming it to be the Will of the People, though the "People" are but a select few either elected to a public office or selected by them to perform at there behest.



Date of Page Origination: Wednesday, 13-Jul-2016... 02:47 PM
Initial Posting: Tuesday, 19-Jul-2016... 11:47 AM
Updated Posting: Sunday, 24-Jul-2016... 12:26 AM