The Communist Manifesto is like a handbook on encouraging people to seek out and identify some conflict... or instigate one so as to provide a pretense, possibility and purpose based on some predicated propositional precedent that provides a permission slip of presumed promise. If there is no conflict, then start one by using labels which help to define a situation which can predispose the adoption of an attitude in opposition to one or another established perspective. And should one develop an associated historical review of such a perspective, a stage might well be set for others to identify with and associate themselves with the struggle... from their perspective. Whereas Hegel used such a perspective from which was established a philosophy noted by the labeled antagonisms of "Thesis - Antithesis" where the eventuality of the conflict results in some "Synthesis" related to a history of human mentality or cognition; Marx and Engels adopted this same formula with which was devised a perceived conflict within an historically reviewed social context by using the terms "Bourgeois and Proletarians", associated to the term "Aristocracy".
From Chapter 1 of the Manifesto can be surveyed the comment: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" which is a statement referring to Marx and Engels' analysis of written history from their 1847 perspective. However, their usage of Hegel's dialectical formula was, because of the labeling identifiably different. Whereas the idea of a synthesis to be arrived at after the struggle between the two classes was to eventually result in a Communism, it must be noted that this presumed "synthesis" was a synthetic creation based on wishful thinking and hopefulness. In other words, it is an inaccurate equation because the third term is a falsification based on a supposition based on an incomplete historicity of what is taking place both on the cognitive level of humanity, and humanities sociological endeavors.
Though we can state that the trio of the terms "Proletarians- Bourgeois- Aristocracy" represent an example of a trichotomy, just as we can easily identify the same reference when applied to Hegel's dialectical of "Thesis- Antithesis- Synthesis"... the term "Aristocracy" is not a synthesis unless we overlay the formula with the notion of "Child- Adult... and Parent"; though some might prefer the words "Teenager- Adult... and Parent". But the usage of such a reference is not understood unless one entertains the recall of witnessing numerous scenes of conflicts between teenagers and adults (who are not always one's parents), and that perhaps... with time... the situation arises when one or both of the parties matures (becomes a parental figure) to the point of conflict resolution. And it does not really matter if the reader prefers switching between the uses of the words "parent and adult", so long as they grasp the overall analogy being made.
Yes, it is obvious to most of us that conflicts abound, and that people instigate conflicts where none existed before... or encourage the intensification of an otherwise negligible disagreement. Conflicts are sometimes for love, money, sex, position, entertainment and numerous other "reasons" or rationales. Lots of individuals, groups or even a Nation can exhibit a chip on their shoulder. When such chips become widely displayed, those in the vicinity of such hypersenstivities must exhibit a behavioral model of acceptance while walking on egg shells so as not to offend some sensibility. It's like having entered into a village which practices a given cultural identity and a parental governing system of supporters. Take for example those with a "Me Black", "Me Feminist" or "Me Homosexual" (etc.) identity of super-charge hypervigilance deliberately seeking out instances of suggested disagreement to them, whereby the verbal weapons of Racist, Chauvinist or Homophobic may well be used as a stoning event. While in such a culture, particularly if one disagrees with a displayed hipocracy of advocation, an attitude of treating the cultural group as a village of "special olympics" participants can easily be identified... and very often permitted if interpreted favorably to the sensibilities of those involved. Many a judge, legislator and business executive have had to play the part of a parental figure so as to mollify potential conflicts brought on by the instance of disparate views.
The larger external hypocrisy arising from the existence of various societal conflicts is the unrealization of the overall situation being a product of readjustment being made by the conditions of an increasing population in the context of environmental decay that is not fully appreciated as to how, how much and how often equilibrium adjustments must be made. It appears that most people would view the knowledge of wide-spread diversification of multiple species as an indication of almost limitlessness in the capacity of biological life to sprout and grow, instead of it as a representation of potential that is nonetheless constrained to a conservative quantity and quality. This constraint is due to the limitations of life-building resources, life-generating energy, and a singular three-patterned (actually 3 -to- 1 ratio) production blue-print called DNA. It's not that some other form of blue-print may not be possible given another type of system of life promoting environmental patterns, it's just that under the patterns of (changing) environmental circumstances to which humanity is subjected, this is the reality under which we live.
And this pattern is not confined nor constrained by the dialectics of either Hegel or the "ME" duo (Marx and Engels). It can not be over-emphasized, though many researchers and historians already recognize the fact that the implied sociological "science" of Marx and Engels (and their advocates) is based on a faulty equation. Indeed, under closer examination, the ideas of Communism, Democracy and Socialism must be interpreted as fantasies because they are neither existent nor having ever been in existence in a "pure" form within the parameters of a modern context. They are like so many three-charactered fairy tales used to entertain, instruct or manipulate the naive. But if not in the formula of three characters such as the three little pigs from different socio-economic levels based on the structural materials used in the construction of their homes, then we might see the trio of differentiation denoted by three tasks to be performed, three trials, three events, or three magic beans such as in one variation of Jack and the Bean stalk. They are similes, metaphors and analogies that delude us into overlooking a reality of practiced fantasy.
But let us congratulate those who have achieved a stage of reflected consciousness where the identity of a dichotomy termed a conflict becomes a stark realization... yet is not placed into the larger content involving the developmental situation involving human cognition... which drives the formation of societal ideology... with respect to its presence as but a part on a conveyor belt production process. Some people become so obsessed with make-believe or made up conflicts (such as a presumed rivalry or the establishment of sports team competition), the true nature of their reality is denied too much of a participating role... and they thus surrender themselves to peer and societal pressures to live out their lives in the stagecraft scenery of a make-believe world that has convinced itself that it is the only true reality, even though others have come to realize this isn't true... that we don't have to live within the constraints of a pathetic governing system such as are being practiced today.
So how do we get a raging river to change its course, or a frightened herd to alter its stampeding direction, or the ravenous drive of an ant army? How do we stop a plague, Tsunami, or Earthquake? How do we stop a vehicle from using too much gas, an infant from crying when its hungry, a light bulb from burning out? Which analogy or metaphor do we use to help or hinder a goal, if the language and logic typically applied prevents us from securing a foot beyond our present time and place? And if we succumb to the usage of presumed charitable considerations in our deferred-to preferences, have we simply complied to some other rationality of the same conflicts of consciousness within ourselves whose dialectic is to resort to the ideologies of "time... as in give it time", "authority... as in leave it to god", or "science... as in where there's a Will there's a way"? How do we convey the view that the way forward is to acknowledge that the Communist Manifesto and its revisionist models are variables of the very conflict needing to be resolved as an issue of cognitive stagnation? How do we reach the would-be Revolutionists of the world to join in a Congress of intellectual endeavour to announce the same collective premise... denoted by the term "Cenocracy"? Will they listen or indulge in the adoption of such an idea as yet another extension of a presumed conflict against and and all who do not share their explicit ideology, though it may have no written formula outside the context of being an amplification of the ideas used by Marx, Engels, Hegel and others?
Just as many denied any authenticity to the Communist Manifesto of old, those who have read it and now embrace some semblance of its characterization, have now adopted the attitude of the previous nay-sayers when they are confronted with a larger exposition of identifying their philosophy as a minor variable in a much broader appreciation of dielectrically conveyed rationale. Argument by way of semantics thus become an added feature which helps them maintain a conveyor belt of production which helps various status quos persist... because it is the advocacy of a hand-to-mouth subsistence. Trying to speak to and with would-be Revolutionists the world over is like talking to slaves and indentured servants about a way of life they are too far removed from in order to appreciate what the ideas of freedom, liberty and personal growth mean. The word "Cenocracy" has no value with which to identify with. It is as enigmatic as the words justice, truth and beauty are when placed under microscopic examination. The idea of subjective personalization causes them to be reflexively cautious when confronted with the ambiguities of multiplicity with respect to definitions, because of an unrecognized prejudice of expectation having been practiced unconsciously as a developed philosophy whose internalization has become an intentionality.
When the aforementioned forces of nature are exhibited in the manner and mode of lying, cheating, deceptive political and governing administrations with supportive judicial and legislative processes buttressed by a police... and if need be, military force(s), the task becomes one of freeing the thesis from its isolation in order that the antithesis can be diluted enough to produce a viable synthesis that does not entail a mixed parity since no equality actually exists as might be imagined in the context of positive and negative forces. Analogies, though at time quite useful in helping to expose, illuminate and illustrate... can sometimes be poorly constructed so as to misrepresent actual circumstances. For example, whereas both the previously noted dialectical constructions exhibit an identity emphasizing conflicts (Proletarians/Bourgeois) and (Thesis/Antithesis), to which we can apply the words "Hot/Cold" to as a similarity, such an organizational pattern need not be used. We could instead use such a formula as:
While in isolation, or an individualized context each set-of-three can be interpreted with a personalized philosophy of meaning and value; the meaning and value are not made less by establishing a similarity of structure with other individualized identities from different subjects. Instead, when viewed together, a much larger value and meaning are established in reference to a collective identification related to overall human cognition. They represent a process of brain and mental development which exerts an influence on the development of a social philosophy. It is the exhibition of a dialectic, but not in the sense established by Hegel and the "ME" duo in their respective application. In a sense, there idea of an historical process is like that presumed by Ernst Haeckel in his biogenetic law (Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (1834-1919) was a German biologist and philosopher who advocated Darwinism and formulated the theory of recapitulation... and was an exponent of materialistic monism (source: WordWeb dictionary).):
(The Biogenetic law,) also called Recapitulation Theory, [Is a] postulation, by Ernst Haeckel in 1866, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny—i.e., the development of the animal embryo and young traces the evolutionary development of the species. The theory was influential and much-popularized earlier but has been of little significance in elucidating either evolution or embryonic growth.
Source: "Biogenetic law." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Biogenetic thinking had arisen in the 1820s with the work of anatomist J. Mecker (1781-1833) and zoologist Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876), but neither of them developed a theory of evolution. Haeckel's great biogenetic predecessor was the german zoologist Fritz Müller (1821-1897), who formulated the basic laws of biogenesis in 1864. According to Haeckel, "the sequence through which a developing individual passes in its embryological stages (a kind of development we call ontogeny), from the single cell to its fully developed state, is actually a short, compressed replay of the long series of species ancestral to that individual from the earliest geological times to the present." Simply stated, Haeckel's law of biogenesis is that ontogeny (individual development) recapitulates phylogeny (development of the species). He concluded that embryos give us the key to earlier Phylogenetic stages of animal groups.
Source: Chapter 4, page 66, Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1976
As time passed and others reflected, re-analyzed and re-experimented, Haeckel's initial idea of "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" is said to be more accurate if it is described as "Embryonic Ontogeny recapitulates Embryogenetic Phylogeny". Thus, it goes from being seen as a large ocean, desert or forest as being but a pond, sand box or grove of weeds. Theories are often aligned with the size of a theorist's ego. Like Marx, Engels and Hegel having imagined themselves describing an "all encompassing... universal" scientific law, what they were actually describing was an example of an internalized structural event. Unfortunately, like many who came to embrace Haeckel's idea as a logical sequence of inter-species development, there are those who have adopted the notion of a dialectical sequence of events occurring in sociological and cognitive developments as representations of "whole" events instead of parts of a larger whole not being considered. Just as Haeckel's idea was insufficient to describe other developmental patterns, the theoretical tenets of the "ME" duo and Hegel have been found to be insufficent— thus requiring revisions and excuses as to why their "scientific" law of accountability did not adequately account for subsequent sociological and cognitive events that did not follow a presumed sequential expectation.
The equations being used by Marx, Engels and their advocates was based upon the presumed logic which was likewise based upon another presumption promoted by Hegel... which did not include variables of influence perpetrated by nature though they thought they were establishing a natural law of cause -and- effect consequence that could be used as a measure of predictable continuity that would be contiguous over large expanses of time. While many look for an identify recurring patterns that suggests a law of predictability, they do not see their overall identification as part of a larger cause -and- effect process within a developmental sequence involving a decay with predictable patterns of generalization that may be used as a specialized formula of variability. Whereas it is alright to engage in a comparative analysis within a given context in order to cite similar patterns of occurrence, to do so amongst a greater scope of seemingly disparate subject matter invites the disposition of deniability because such a model of comparison is felt to be a disparagement because an act of diversification unveils the existence of equality signifying mediocrity because of a common-place occurrence.
By showing that the patterns used by Marx, Engels, Hegel and others representative of common-place cognitive patterns, the personalized ideas in which are embedded such common-place patterns suggest a meritocracy that does not sit well with over-valued egos attached to the embellishments applied to such basic patterns of thought and action. If we display the three-patterned grouping of "Father - Son - Holy Spirit" alongside the three-patterned phrase "Drugs- Sex- Rock and Roll" or "Veni - Vidi - Vici", those whose egos have attached themselves to one or another phrase because of some personalized referencing system, may discount all other references as copies or mimicry, but not see the recurrence as either suggestive of a similarity in human cognitive patterning nor that such a recurrence is suggestive of an external influence in a pristine formative sense. Whereas one pattern can influence recreations using different labels, and that the first one could be influenced by some physiological event, the physiological event may have had its initial formation from an unobserved environmental even predating the birth of an individual.
The recurrence of three-patterned anatomical structures outlined on page one of this series can either indicate a cognitive predisposition to see things in sequences of "three", and/or that it is a functional dialectical-like process influenced from a more basic three-patterned influence such as the triplet coding in DNA. Yet, it is of need to consider that not all occurrences of this pattern will be exhibited in "clean-cut" varieties of expression. Some may be hidden, overlayed with others, or incompleted formed... such that human physiology should not be considered as a structure epitomizing the end point of development. Such an array of recurring "threes" may itself reflect a transition point of growth that will not be fully recognized for millions, if not billions or trillions of years. However, nonetheless, we must deal with the information presently at our disposal. So let us rehearse a few of the ideas already mentioned... or implied.
The recurrence of one or more given patterns in human physiology labeled with a symbol for distinction which not permit interpretations to indulge in extraneous models of illustration, and thus can be compared to alternative contexts in which the same pattern can be identified, speaks of either a consistency of human perception and/or a consistency of influence. However, when such a pattern exhibits periodic reflects of a development from simpler patterns (such as one and two), this then suggests that the influence may be of several types or of a single type with a developmental design in its history. So let us spit it out, so to speak, if previous intentions of doing so have not been readily deduced:
(A dialectic was) originally a form of logical argumentation but (is) now a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature, and history
Among the classical Greek thinkers, the meanings of dialectic ranged from a technique of refutation in debate, through a method for systematic evaluation of definitions, to the investigation and classification of the relationships between specific and general concepts. From the time of the Stoic philosophers until the end of the European Middle Ages, dialectic was more or less closely identified with the discipline of formal logic. More recently, Immanuel Kant denoted by “transcendental dialectic” the endeavour of exposing the illusion involved in attempting to use the categories and principles of the understanding beyond the bounds of phenomena and possible experience. G.W.F. Hegel identified dialectic as the tendency of a notion to pass over into its own negation as the result of conflict between its inherent contradictory aspects. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels adopted Hegel's definition and applied it to social and economic processes.
Source: "Dialectic." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
[Hegel was a] German philosopher who developed a dialectical scheme that emphasized the progress of history and of ideas from thesis to antithesis and thence to a synthesis.
Source: "Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The overlooked "negation" described in the article is interpreted to mean the presence of one or more conflicts which cause attempts at resolution to be foolhardy gestures because they are unrealized impediments. Mark, Engels and their advocates promoted recognition of perceived (and presumed) social class conflicts in order that disclosure might assist in developing a resulting resolution in the form of an improved social governing function from an "enlightened" (knowledgeable) awareness of conditions due to causes and effects. The problem is that their vision was part of the conflict as well. It was (and remains) part of the overall cause and effect scenario because it too needs to be subjected to a further enlightened perspective. It is part of a "growing pain" that people do not want to grow out of because they have become habituated to the pain now being described as an epitomized expression of life and living instead of a cacoon or exoskeleton due to a cyclicity of maturationally defined molting.
While Hegel and others adopted a defined acknowledgment of a (presumed) existing developmental sequencing to history and thought illustrated with the vernacular of a given subject's context such as Sociology the lack of a larger exposition of a larger appreciation involving developmental sequences and recurring patterns in numerous other informational parameters such as cosmology, genetics, physics, linguistics, anatomy, etc., kept them and their advocates of today in in a state of development akin to a formative primordial soup. While some have learned to crawl, others to walk, and some have managed to give themselves the impression of progressing from these early ideological stages by climbing into lofted positions, all of them remained grounded to a past heritage by refusing to step forward... away from the comfort trappings of their nested ideologies, in order to give themselves the necessary incentive to spread their intellectual wings and soar to new vistas of accomplishment.
Revolutionists of today must march to the beat of a different drummer by detaching themselves from the ideological out-growths of their past inclinations... of interpreting their inclinations for creating a better society by relying on lineages of sociological and philosophical historicity which force them to conform to impediments to the enhancement of goals in tune with a enhanced realization of their value in accomplishing the task which is akin to the call of a voice they have long sought to hear a greater clarity of and is now only being premise with the idea denoted as a New Government. And they will march because for some, their whole life has been but a rehearsal for the promise of such a day to unfold. And the depth of their conviction will encourage others to consider following in step because it is a long-awaited mission seeking the development of that embodied in the sincerity and courage of developing a desperately needed Cenocracy.