Those who participate in the prevailing Plutocratic-Aristocracy may have some sense that they inhabit an elite social position of direct or indirect influence on some social condition, or they may be oblivious as to their role. In any case, they may effect the role of a direct or indirect antagonist to those seeking some social reform, because their advantages may continue to require the absence of a more profound equality, justice, liberty and freedom thought to exist in the practice of an Actual Communism, Democracy, or Socialism, or some amalgamated formulation thereof. The positions of such social leaders, did not come by way of a Communism, Democracy nor Socialism because such institutions of sociability and functionality exist in distorted and disfigured disproportionalities which are portrayed as surrealist reproductions of artistic intimations. However, they are such because we do not know how to achieve a greater clarity since precedents exhibit vague appraisals of social situations which appeal to the cognitively formulated desires of intellectualisms not yet tried out. At present, an Actual Communism, Democracy or Socialism remains in a visionary state that has not yet exercised the necessary intuition to devise an applicable social architecture.
While some believe they have a better plan, such plans typically do not include a representative scaffolding of how to achieve implementation. Whereas one may speak of rebellion, riot, revolution, resistance, revolt... and the like, their attempts to foment such a path of torrential change-producing conditions may achieve little more than minute expressions that attempt to take advantage of some standardized political venue, or attempt to create a social "movement" that either has no designated leadership or has a leadership abiding with a loosely connected philosophy which is used to conceal ineptness because of intellectual, moral or self-centered adjudications which create an atmosphere of impotence. Though there may exist a deeply sincere conviction for bringing about purposive social change, they come to label their views as a Cause above all Causes and not as an example of yet another symptom of a much larger dysfunctionality that can not be adequately addressed even if everyone on the planet adopted their same inclinations, intuitions, and presumed insight. For example, homosexuals or those who practice alternative sexualities such as bestiality, pedophilia, rape, under-age molestation, incest, promiscuity, bisexuality, etc., are not inclined to think of themselves as exhibited expressions of an incremental planetary decay. Many want to think of themselves in a positive and "enlightened" stage of evolutionary development, just as do those who claim their government practices a "true" democracy, despite all the contravening evidence.
Such people have a mind-set similar to those who harbor the social stratum of the Plutocratic-Aristocracy. They are part of a herd-centered morbidity that reformists have time and again been confronted with in various head-butting venues. It is difficult to displace a leadership by using a small force when their following, as a status-quo, can be marshaled into a standing army which uses the strategy of simply ignoring a group of protestors by way of permitting them to vent frustrations born of impulsive emotionality that all too often has shown itself to an expression of short-lived energy, and not a sustained nor sustainable current of concentric waves that can effectively breech the shores of conventionality. Such social movements typically do not have lasting appeal because the embraced philosophy is ill-adaptive to the many vagaries of human conception from place to place, time to time and person to person. Such philosophies do not evolve into a mathematics formula, cultural belief, biological chemistry, anthropological discovery, artistic expression, astronomical perspective, musical sheet, theatrical script and so many other consciousnesses of review. Such philosophies typically remain isolated interests because they do not achieve multi-lingual, inter-subject communications.
For many, they recognize one or another perspective is viewed as a good idea, but what do they do in order to help bring about its adoption, when the prevailing system is largely set up to disregard alternative ideas because they act like production models whose conveyor belt system has no off, or re-direction switch except in the case of some major social disruption? Most governing systems are particularly inflexible to re-directive change like a body out-of-step, diseased, injured or otherwise appreciably irresponsive to a highly charged brain whose hand -to- eye coordination has been stupefied or inebriated. Even if all the world's Communists and Socialists came together to protest in one country against those who generally shrug off the existence of prevailing inequalities because they think they are not unduly affected by such conditions; what would be the plan of action, who would lead it, what would be the structure of government, and what would be the adopted economic system? Would such a protest require a full scale assault on institutions whose internal leadership prefers the present government because they are convinced they live in a democracy but actually don't; and it nonetheless is the illusion of the situation which sustains them? What if a measurable lot hold this same opinion and do not want to be forced to abide by a different governing formula even if it does Represent the practice of an Actual Communism, Democracy or Socialism? Does the protest include a methodology of re-educating the public prior to the implementation of a New Government in order to make the transition less traumatic? Will there be a totally new leadership or will present leaders be permitted to remain so long as they abide by the philosophical premise of a New Government?
What if every single person working in the Banking system, Stock Market, and energy industries refuse to accept a New Government because they have become habitually used to the present one? At what point in a protest is their re-education to take place or substitutions for their positions to be sought out? How do we proceed to educate the military and various police units when the world's ardent supporters for social reform are themselves stubbornly resistant to being re-educated in their adopted philosophies? If we can not bring the world's social reformist orientations into adopting a singular momentum of thought to bring about purposive change... though they may claim themselves to be open-minded... how much more difficult will it be to create a singular momentum out of the mind's of millions whose individualities of consideration are less consciously responsive to social iniquities and dwell in personalized perspectives of way-ward self-indulgences and want to re-align a given protest to voice a personal opinion amounting to little more than a complaint about some perceived injustice that is but a symptom of a larger social dysfunctionality they are oblivious to, and have no personal context for comprehending in the social language they are most comfortable in using?
And what of the social analysts, whose in depth perspicuity is consciously aware of the iniquities and hypocrisies? Are they to be permitted to sit back and portray the smug demeanor of an adolescent genius who feels a sort of personal empowerment because of some presumed erudite knowledge? How are we to confront them in our protests, even though they may have adopted complex scenarios of concealing their insight so as to avoid direct participation... but nonetheless attempt to place themselves in an advantageous position of resource gain and social accomplishment? Because even spectators are participants in a game, it is necessary for their roles to be consciously defined as such... just as taxpayers are active participants in perpetuating the formula of governance under which they live. And some semblance of a life is what all pursue... however it may be defined on a personal or inter-personal level, within one's inter-familiar or inter-social position. Disruptions are permitted so long as the disruptions are understood as necessary inconveniences... or sacrifices out of which a greater gain will be established.
In many respects, social reformists the world-over may view themselves, in their own words, as architectural draftspersons chipping away at a boulder of marble, from which they think will eventually emerge the portrait of a landscape denoting a structural form of a New Government chemistry with the physics of an evolved economics model from which will be born the fruit of a New Age. The path along which they trek is one that affords them the impetus to question prevailing practices and supposed logical intuitions of presumed common-sense. For example, when some come to define social problems as being due to an enlarged size of government that "obviously" means the solution to such social ills is by way of government reduction; they come to recognize that an Actual Communism, Democracy or Socialism requires the entire citizenry to consciously participate in the functionality of government. As such, a government is supposed to be Big, because it is supposed to include, and not disenfranchise the majority. When we note the common reference to Democracy as that being portrayed by Abraham Lincoln's expression "Of, By, For (all) the People" (adopted from the writings of the abolitionist minister Theodore Parker); this statement signifies that the American government is believed to be that which involves everyone ("the people")... and this "everyone" means a very large government if we include the entire 300+ million citizens.
Yet, such a perspective of idealization is intended to be in the expressed formula of an Actual Democracy and not the current model of a Republic (vicarious Representation). The present "Republic" government formula defines the two-word phrase "the people" to mean a select body of Representatives and elected officials who may further select others who have no responsibility whatsoever of being directly answerable to the public. As such, America's so-called "Democracy" is an hypocrisy that the people have a right to protest strongly against, and for the adoption of a New Government, as a personal duty to their self-respect as a collaboration of many cultures. The present governing structure leaves them with little legal option except to exist in a social state of modernized indentured servitude, camouflaged by the invented neurosis embraced by a life-style of trying to make the best of less than ideal social situations. Such a circumstance establishes an on-going cognitive dissonance which is being expressed in an ongoing and increasingly developed disharmony because it is the practice of a schizophrenic orientation that a normalized consciousness can not... but be at odds with.
Yes, how are we reformist-minded millions scattered about the globe to bring about purposed social improvement if we can not even come together and speak of a united intent by describing it as a Cenocracy? When we note that many inventive ideas pass through maturational stages of development, some of which remain in the model of a toy without being applied to day -to- day adult exercises like the construction of a cart... all because such forward thinking orientations want to bite off more ideology they can chew on at time. And though numerous other analogies exist, the point to be made is that different would-be reformers are comforted by personalized assumptions of righteous thinking used as an intellectualized point of territorial demarcation as if it were a deliberately placed line in the sand daring anyone to cross it and thereby justifying a retaliatory effort instead of using it as a welcoming mat in which to enlighten and perhaps enlightened by the views of others.
Whereas all reformists appear to accept the view that there is a desperate need for a New Government, this point of equality is not stressed as the point from which collaborative discussions can proceed. If we can come to agree on one point of equality, other points of similitude can be adopted as well... from which a collated manifesto can arise for others to use as a starting point for their own collaborative efforts. Despite those who might question our motives and ask themselves if we actually need a New Government, or can the present models be "tweaked" to remove their rough edges... our response must be a unanimous YES! It is a statement which can be used to begin every discussion: We are gathered here because we believe it is necessary that a New Government be established. From this one consensus as an unmistakable equality of accepted consciousness, other basic equalities can be sought for, identified and adopted as the criteria of a manifesto whose elaboration into a more formative structure will serve as an underlying New Government philosophy that transgresses all language, all cultures, and the social formations of future ages we can scarce imagine.
Thus, a New Government... a Cenocracy, must be established in regards to the collective consciousness of the age to which it is intended, and not be used as a precedent for future ages to have a dedicated standing argument for perpetuating a status quo of tradition which, like today, has shown itself in so many ways to be incompatible with a public consciousness whose disconcertions are being regularly dismissed as irrelevant by a governed source amounting to oppression. We as a people, as a species, are in many ways kept from exploring the hierarchically-illustrated boundaries of achievement because we are persistently having to struggle for the acquisition of our basic needs. It is difficult, if not impossible for most, to see beyond one's purview of consciousness when such a potential is restrained by the forced need of looking inward... as a consumer of goods for those who want no competition to ensue from a collective commitment in striving to reach beyond one's grasp. A person can not see nor hear the beckoning call of a distant shore if they and theirs are chained to rolls of production below the decks of a government vessel run by those whose only interest is in seeing the puffed chest of their ego expressed in the lofted sails which they command to be unfurled away from shores which help to define outlined shores of consciousness, liberty, freedom, justice and equality.
But such triangulated poetics are eschewed by those whose interests are bound to the fundamentals of a given economy effected within the parameter of a marketplace ideology based on the primivity of a dichotomous give -and- take incentives. It is a variation of a hand -to- mouth feeding exercise in which paper money prevails as a metaphor for leaves used as a primary nesting material for primates, and coinage are either glistening drops of dew, honey or morsels of immature insect larva, if not the fermented form of adult caricature. With society as a theatre, as a stage, we thus pay witness to a poorly written script of governance that is undeservedly denoted as an inviolable scripture. And though written on stone as a government formula may be addressed as, it is one we reformists know must be dramatically altered; without breeding succeeding generations of echoed sentiments with incompletely developed philosophies that entails a self-defined dispensation for engaging in fruitless anarchy or abusive terrorisms.
The Communist Manifesto of old did not bring about the desired changes of well-being on the scale imagined by its writers and advocates. It did however contribute to a history of revisionism and manifested excuses used as rationales defining what did and did not take place. Yet, for all that has been learned, later generations of would-be reformists on either large or small scales of social application... quite often turn to this document from which is derived a simplified understanding of a struggle they do not themselves know how to define nor illustrate in an comprehensive manner, and rely upon the pronounced dichotomies [lower/middle] social classes with the added attribute of an [upper] class to profess a parallel distinction with GFW Hegels' usage of a named "dialectic" formula with the same pattern in which both are used to highlight a successive progress of ideas with an inclusive history... that did not, and could not identify as examples of environmentally influenced "reciprocations", reflexes, recall, representation (etc.,) of a pattern coincident with the particular environment in which humanity finds itself having evolved... (because of the lack of knowledge about developmental processes in different subject areas which existed in their respective eras.) But such a cadre of reformist orientation quite often falls into the routinization of repetitive research indulgences and do not look far outside the edges of this Communist document to survey what the intuitions of others, with an undeniable foresight enhanced by hindsight... have uncovered and should be applied in order to avoid previously made mistakes. However, on occasion, we encounter the voices of those that sound like the refrain of an old phonographic recording that has been severely scratched from misuse.
Those reformists who refer to themselves as Cenocrats, are advocating a New Government agenda labeled "Cenocracy". It is intended as a premise... or in the Hegelian tradition... a thesis, from which to inspire an antithesis and eventual synthesis. Yet, such a usage is a superficiality since they are aware of the cognitive stages of transitioning from the one, to the two, to the three, and then a three -to- one ratio based on a broader appreciation of a developing Universe, galaxy, planetary system, biology and cognitive structuring; all of which appear to partake of sequential effects on any developing societal and philosophical application. We can not secure the promise of a greater future by way of an enhanced governing formula by being restricted to the tradition of an ideology such as the Communist Manifesto and its associated criteria of supportive texts written at the hands of multiple others, if we are left in the position of being stuck in a quagmire of intellectual trappings which keep us from progressing beyond semantics with a suffocating reformist romanticism. Thus, with an outstretched and uprighted hand we acknowledge the aspirations of those reformists who have not only come and gone... with their own struggles in mind, but those of today and those who shall follow, by saying Cenocracy! In this respect, we are as one... an avowed equality of consciousness.
Many, many, many articles created by numerous writers, have been read... though by no means have all existing ideas been reviewed; and many others are not even widely dispersed as yet nor made available in readily accessible language formats or retrievable means. Nonetheless, we want to acknowledge a shared consanguinity of the reformist spirit... even if portions of our philosophies differ in scope. For we have met, and continue to meet those whose agreement in the need for a New Government is a signal that the distribution of such an idea, as an ideal, is being felt by others who may not have a specific word with which to identify such a felt preference; but are provided the hope of an achievable realization when such a word as "Cenocracy" is provided and thus initiates the formative social ambiance necessary for a meeting of similar mindedness to begin a more lengthy conversation. But we can not simply remain at this beginning. Because once a conversation has been initiated and questions begin to arise, we must either have answers or implore another's assistance in developing a desired structure or at least promote the development of a scaffolding from which a construction can begin.
If we want the strategy for the development of a New Government to unfold, this idea, portrayed with a single word, must be parlanced in the conventionalites of discourse which embeds it as a common-sensical attitude to be taken for granted in the sense of adoption as a natural course of established thinking. It is an advanced governing liberation (Eleutherocracy) which will be effected like an accepted ingredient in making a pie, cake, or scheme used in constructing a puzzle. It is the blueprint for a new type of protest measure to be waged by situating the idea of a Cenocracy as a recurring billboard or signpost giving millions of travelers a point of destination serving as a point of embarkation. This is what all reformists want. A means by which their ideas, perhaps not yet fully developed into a workable ideal, obtains the social status for being seriously discussed for the purpose of an assigned session of peer-reviewed critiquing whereby improvements can be made and eventually finalized into a genre of appreciable reformist countenance.
But such reflections of this sort, if there are more than is suggested by some disclosed reveries, do not find themselves stark naked in the public arena of disclosure without also concealing a means of conversible intellectual subterfuge, by supplicating a feigned humility— by appealing to the measure of pragmatics being deduced in the course of observations with whom must deal with if they so lack the acumen beyond the simplistics attributed to the interest of economically- oriented simpletons. Simple language is sometimes more amenable with those unfamiliar with the language whose garments and masks are not histrionic forms of nor any form of intellectual defense mechanism. Whereas use of such a language deflects vagaries of basic mathematical organization from being able to suggest an intellectual calculus where none exists because of the mistakes made by trying to unravel convoluted semantics; such a form of discussion is most often superimposed with street-side vernaculars or the associated dichotomizations preferred by those with unpracticed vocabularies involving an understanding of a larger formulation of cognitive patterning.
As such, it is necessary that we step away from such a jargon and momentarily regurgitate the language used in the Communist Manifesto for those whose revisionist and reformist interests attempt to impose a presumed greater "scientific-ology" to Marx and Engles' declaration of having produced a definitive scientific assessment of sociological understanding; though the language used by them differs in structure but not tone nor actual definition. To this end, let us again review the antagonist "Thesis-Antithesis" dichotomy in the formula of the "Proletariat-Bourgeoisie", with the added feature of a "Synthesis" vaguely attended to with the entitled "Aristocracy", though some may prefer to see some other label used to provide for the image of an amalgamation. Whether one views this as a prescient deduction or ejaculated masturbatory intellectualism, denies the recurrence, now identified in other subject areas, as being proficiently applicable to discussions of sociological development with a concourse of supportable data. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that Marx, Engles, nor Hegel were right in their assessments. As noted in previous pages, we must look beyond their discussions in order to pay witness to replications of there patterns having evolved.
But the writing tactic of using elongated explanations to point out a particularly simple pattern are used my many of us. However, it is rather fortuitous that Marx and Engles used a pattern defined in the context of revealing an historically related succession related to cognitive development that was, in the case of Marx and Engles, associated with an indulgence towards an analytical assessment of sociological development. It is rather unfortunate that they were not privy to the more extensive information we have today in various subject areas, or they might have been able to discern the existence of a 1, 2, 3 (and 3 -to- 1) maturational development sequence such as the one, two, three germ layers development for different life forms, with a succession of complexity noted in the evolutionary trek leading to humanity. Interestingly, though some researchers make a point of highlighting the existence of a dichotomy within a trichotomy [(Proletariat-Bourgeoisie) Aristocracy], this form of descriptioning does not lead such viewers into the suggested realization that it may represent a developmental distinction in a "1-2" phase before proceeding towards a third stage. Like the oft'-noted recurring counting schemes of different peoples developing a consciousness of number and relating differences in quantity with different symbols, where such a development exhibits moments of developmental cessation in that after a number identity is established, there may be a lull in further number development, that, with each successive acquisition of number conceptualization, another lull may occur. While it is further noted that many different number concept themes have exhibited a "one-two-many" (three-patterned formula), this does not become readily aligned with other three-patterned cognitive schemes such as the two aforementioned patterns of Hegel and the Marx-Engles duo.
Argumentatively, it may be, on occasion, customarily to discount such an example by denoting the fact that number sequences exceed the value of "3", yet if we look closely when writing number values, it is after the third position in which find the placement of a comma, as a sort of maturational stopping point, before proceeding to a larger array of yet another set-of-three numbers. For example, we place a comma after the hundreds place before beginning with "thousands" and then successively place more commas after each set of three no matter how long the sequential history-like array of is:
The same pattern is repeated in simple sequences and in mathematical equations which nonetheless subscribe to basic operations such as add, subtract, multiply and divide. In each case, two are collectivized in order to synthesize a third, such as ([1 + 2] = 3), which constitutes a duality within a trichotomy. And as been noted before, it is not that humans are without a potential capacity to exceed basic patterns, it appears that there is a restriction that we may refer to as a conservation; because of some inherent predisposition to do this because it is a requirement for survival in a decaying environment... that impresses the replication of such patterns on our anatomy, biology and psyche. Thus it is of considerable heuristic value when devising the pragmatics of self-governance which necessarily involves the implemented adoption of a corresponding economic program.
Whereas such programs typically become as supportive adjuncts to a given form of governance, weaknesses in such economic programs will eventually arise if they support governing programs which are anti-thetical to values of honesty based on the availability of truth within the context of obtainable subject matter which seek the stability of an equilibrium that a government structure is out of step with, as the world's governments are today, but are sometimes more easily concealed in small applications (such as countries with small populations) or large applications (countries with large populations) which can distort the realization of recurring patterns being inter-subject-ly affected by required internalized re-adjustments not readily conducive to stagnant (institutionalized) government structures... whose leaders, under unrealized stress, may make poor choices resulting in re-adjustments by way of destructive occurrences.