While many of us have forgotten, some of us have never contemplated the fact that the social (economic) governance which we practice is an experiment. Communism, Democracy, and Socialism, despite the truncated and distorted variations which are put into play, and because of which may be the reason for so much dysfunctionality, have failed to provide humanity with a sustained level of well-being. If such exercises were deemed scientific experiments, they would quickly be addressed and altered so as to reflect the rationality of truth which diverse opinions would be brought to bear upon them. Though differences may nonetheless abound with respect to interpretation of infinitesimals, we do not find this same attitude prevailing amongst so-called Political Scientists. They are not collectively calling for new experiments to replace those which are obviously ill-suited for the practicalities of our humanity, because their mindset in the present age lacks the rigour of honesty in their contemplations. Instead, they permit themselves to get bogged down with the details of negligibly microscopic social minutiae than macroscopic functionality based on the premise of a realized pattern of natural structuring, such as been outlined in previous pages.
Humanity is in desperate need of a new vision of social (economic) governance that, for want of a better name, is being labeled a New Government... a "Cenocracy". Marx, Engles and their collaborators developed the idea for a New form of economic Governance by aligning information using a dichotomous formula in assessing what they thought were parallel social patterns in past ages proceeding into their own age, in order to outline an illustration suggesting a developmental progression whose inevitability could be best described by the word Communism. It was an assumption based upon the assumption that their analysis was a scientific schematic of a perceived reality that could be denoted as a Natural law of human social progress. Unfortunately, the information that was used by them amounted to an equation which was not only too elementary in scope, but severely lacked the necessary calculus of variable application. It is the same problem we are encountering today. Even though many have approached the failed results of the thinking which applied to the Communist Manifesto, and despite all the genuinely deep sincerity many people have sought to unravel the problematics that the Manifesto has... manifested... in numerous subsequent generations, they are quibbling about internalized formulations like the many forms of excuses indulged in by those experiencing one or another addiction.
The same problem(s) are being addressed in different venues and stimulated by the ambiance of the sociability involved. For example, it is like the same problem being discussed in a classroom after it is placed on a blackboard, or amongst study partners looking at the problem written on a sheet of notebook paper, or amongst like-minded enthusiasts after the problem has been sketched out on a paper napkin in a restaurant or tavern. Yet, all of the participants are oblivious to the fact that the the same equation is being used as a conversation piece... like some magazine that is browsed through in an office while waiting to be served for some dental or medical exam. It has become so much a part of conventional social dialogue that it is expected to be discussed in conventional models of thinking. While words, phrases and poetic alterations are tried out, and from which an artistic genre of intellectualism has arisen to imply an avant-garde chicness of perspicacious uniqueness... it is not being seen for the uniform mental dress code amongst social thinkers, that it is. The ideology of Marx, Engles and those adopting their own various interpretations thereof, have created a culture of perception akin to a legerdemain of sacrificially deferred necessity.
Granted that those who are obsessed with some self-identifying "ME" (Marxian and Engles) perspective like a child clinging to the familiarity of security blanket or toy will have difficulty in weaning themselves from a formulated idolization because of some personally needed attachment pacification; those whose reverential respect is less binding, may find it easier to take a step back from accustomed derivatives of socially discussed accountabilities and rehearse the logic which was used by now antiquated "ME"-selfie of 'intellectucality' from the perspective of a different kind of review. The so-called scientific analysis used by them is not "the" equation, but is a type of operational order within an equation. The actual equation, though not yet fully comprehended, or perhaps even comprehensible by us living today, involves an appreciation of fundamentals that have not been fully deduced and coherently applied to our sociological considerations.
Let us present an example by using an observation of the different types of progressively oriented Economic (government) systems being reiterated by different writers, because a host of different people have come to agree upon the labeling as inclusive generalities, even though the quantity differs by one. While some view the terms "Communism, Democracy, Socialism" as socio-political constraints only, they are necessarily aligned with corresponding economic formulas, even if such labels do not represent "pure" forms of their applied name. (For example, America does not practice a true Democracy... it practices a pseudo-form called [Representative] Republicanism)... and yet few are recognizing the perspective as a cognitive pattern with parallels in other subjects. In other words, why aren't their 17 overall economic models or 99 or 186? Why the conservation of number (quantity) that is being replicated as a cognitive pattern again and again and again? Is there a corresponding qualitative character to be associated with this patterning as well?
Some writers define three types:
Other writers define four types:
The so-called "four" types can alternatively be described as a three -to- one 3-"2"-1 formula by separating the "traditional" model in a category from the others by including some exclusionary "odd man out" criteria, even though there are some who would like to import some of its features into a Mixed economic model.
It's not that humanity does not have the capacity to create multiple variations, it's that the recurring cognitive pattern being displayed attests to environmental constraints being imposed upon the human psyche, physiology and genetics. In some instances we do see a variability of considerations, but these do not prevail over time. It appears that eventually, a conservation of cognitive number identity is adopted. For example, though humanity once thought in terms of multiple gods, there is a wide-spread general acceptance of one god... though some religions such as Hinduism and Christianity retain a three-godhead description such as Brahma - Vishnu- Siva and Father- Son- Holy Spirit/Ghost. Similarly, though there are multiple sub-atomic particles coincident to the three large particles (Protons- Neutrons- Electrons), physicists have adopted the idea of a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) [Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Gravity] or Theory Of Everything (TOE) where the (assumed) three forces of Nature (Electro-magnetic, Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear) can be described (in human terms) as one force.
However, depending how one interprets the meaning of "force" and whether or not a dichotomous complementarity is applied in one's cognitive construct, there is controversy in how to describe the number of Natural nuclear forces. For example:
Nonetheless, there is a conservation of number (quantity) that we, from our survival position on Earth with its requirements for continually re-establishing an adjusted equilibrium for living in the present incrementally decaying environment; assume to be a universal application. If you are like Marx and Engles who assumed their views were a scientific exposition of a universally applicable progressive gradation towards some achievable ultimate desirability, the notion of "progress" in terms of a refinement of equilibrium within the constraints of a decaying environment may not come to mind... because such thinking would then be noted as an illusory effect due to an environmentally influenced rationality of denial instigated by the cyclicity inherent in a system which practices a recurring life -to- death -to- life... scenario which acts as an inebriation.
However, if we were to consider that are assumptions were only as "real" as that which is necessary for maintaining a psychological equilibrium within the constraints of a decaying system, such a notion would reverberate into all our institutions of thought processing and resulting conclusive considerations. Many would do everything in their power to deny such a possibility, like the reactions of the Roman Catholic Church upon being confronted to the description that the Earth was not the center of the Universe... which implied the avowed beliefs were just as phoney. It is difficult for humanity to have a stable religion, philosophy or society while being subjected to an environment requiring incremental adjustments for maintaining some semblance of equilibrium in a decaying environment. The rationality of humanity is irrationality because of the necessity of incrementally adjusting ourselves to unstable environmental circumstances. Our ability for adaptation is based on an incremental variability which can be thrown askew if confronted by circumstances requiring an increased responsiveness. While short-term increased responsiveness may be possible for some, an extended period may produce disabling conditions we can not easily recover from, or at all.
In both aforementioned economic model representations, there is the notion that societies are progressing towards some assumed monumental scenario of developmental greatness based on a naive "ME"-like evolutionary notion of stepwise increasing fortuity, even if the reality of intermittent regressions, stalemates and digressions aren't put into the discussion by one or another contemplative thinker. Yet, this assumed progression is not viewed in terms of an exercised variability concerning adaptations to an environment headed towards destruction which is addressed by varying adjustments being made to finding a measure of equilibrium within the environmental constraints of the decay already in progress. In other words, our so-called social advancements are temporary equilibrium adjustments to a decaying environment. Amongst these adjustments is an adopted rationality embraced by religion, government, science, and business. We rationalize our chances for survival, for innovation, for our ability to meet any challenge and to overcome any obstacle... if given enough time to do so. Yet, the scale of this time allotment is decreasing, and along with it our resources, while we overlook population growth.
Population growth is an extremely serious problem. It will have to be addressed rationally or irrationally. In either case, because humanity is subjected to an environmental system headed along a course of decay (galactic expansion, solar burnout and expansion, Earth's slowing rotation and the departure of the Moon's "nearby" presence) which will result in a reduction of life-sustaining provisions; we are slowly and inextricably being forced to modify our social (economic) forms of governance. By looking at Communism, Democracy and Socialism as child rearing techniques, we find them expressing values which many parents do not abide with, and this includes the values taught by religious authority such as Jesus and Mohammed. For example, Jesus teaches that we should turn our cheek to abusers or bullies and to give the shirt off our back. In the case of Mohammed, his actions were a repeated exercise of warring behavior. And with respect to the three social (economic) systems of governance:
As it stands, Communism, Democracy nor Socialism provide humanity with the most long term viability. They must be re-developed in accord with knowledge that is presently available for consideration. Even if we take the "best" qualities of all three, whatever these attributes may be, it is not certain they would yield that which will be of most value by including the realization of environmentally influenced cognitive patterning as highlighted on previous pages. We are of course assuming a representative symbolic link between repetitive biological, physiological and cognitive patterns with the similarity of those observable in the larger cosmological environment involving the galaxy, solar system, Earth and lunar changes. Such a perspective will be reviewed on the next page.