Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Calling All Communists and Socialists
page 5


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 rigor 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 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 'intellectuality' 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:

  • Command
  • Market
  • Mixed

Other writers define four types:

  • Traditional
  • Command
  • Market
  • Mixed

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:

  • We can take a "four" approach: (Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Gravity, Electro-magnetism), or
  • We can take a "three" approach: (Nuclear forces, Electro-magnetic, Gravity), or.
  • We can even take a "two" approach: (Nuclear, Electro-gravitational).

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 phony. 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:

Communism: (under its current state of development as a social idea/ideal...)
  • Requires a "rich" (resource filled... "strong") economy in order that everyone can have anything they want because there will (assumedly) be a "super" abundance of material wealth that people could ever possibly want or need... that is if all things are advertised and people are made aware of all available commodities. Interestingly, its values rely on the usage of a non-communist methodology in order to reach a stage where there is a strong economy so that it can arise victoriously, like some sort of symbiotic organism hitching a ride on a well-endowed source of life-sustaining nourishment in order that it may flourish... and yet will abandon the one for another when the resource base dwindles. In order for it to inflame, it must first be lit by an external source of fire, spark or source of easy flammability. It can not be forced down the throat of a public or it will be rejected just as violently.

  • It embraces the tenet expression "from each according to abilities, to each according to needs". And yet, this implies a system in which one's abilities and one's needs can be accurately accessed... and are not contoured along the path of some presumed ideal according to the dictates of one or a few who participate in the functionality of a governance not in tune with the reality presented by a decaying environment.

  • The system advocates a classless, money-less, stateless system, including the absence of singular, individualized family units because all husbands, wives and children will belong to (have to be shared by) everyone... that is regularly interpreted as the ideology of promiscuity... of which sexuality plays a part, but is not the sole idea of sharing. Indeed, the labeled ideas of "husband", "wife" and "one's children" are hypocritical constructs in such a "free" society because they are forms of personally denoted ownership.

  • The system also advocates (according to Marx and Engles in their Communist Manifesto): "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Yet, such a "free development" is hypocritical since Communism (in present ideological considerations) stresses a Communalism of commonism, and does not provide for extremes of development characteristically seen in those with exceptional talent or genius. If it does, then there is an exercise of privatizing individuality and perhaps using it for personalized designs... even if that which is designed through such a methodology are universally made available to everyone, afterwards. If Communism does not come by way of a Natural inclination inherent in the human species to practice Communism (as it is presently or later to be defined), then it is a practice of an imposed ideology, whether equally shared as an ideal viability or not.

  • Egotistical comparisons are made between it (in some supposed ideal state by its advocates) and their assumptions that present governing systems practice an actual Democracy and/or Socialism, when no government does. One can only make theoretical comparisons because even though a country is claimed as a Democracy or Socialism, a closer analysis discloses that no ideal representative model exists. Trying to suggest an ideal state of one social ideology is superior by comparing it to selections which are filled with obvious faults, is the exercise of an unequalized distribution of ideological considerations.

  • Private property and personal ownership are to be devalued... which, in the extreme, entails the loss of one's self-identity, one's personality, one's thoughts, one's feelings, one's imagination, etc... since they will belong to everyone for their usage as they see fit, or as an imposed system sees fit... because any and all practiced ideologies require the imposition of maintenance in a system of decay. In order to practice an idea collectively, it must be imposed by law, by habit, by persuasion, by reinforcement and/or punishment, by culture, etc... Individuality is suppressed for the sake of some assumed ideal commonness in order to achieve some presumed greater level of equality.

  • Overall, Communism is an idea representing a "fusion" of the people into some amalgamated singleness of mind, body and spirit... and yet its advocates do not consider that such a perspective is the result of an environmental circumstance influencing this idea of "oneness" as a response to a decay involving a fusion of life sustaining events which we have been biologically conditioned to be projectively pointed in the direction of seeking a harmony with the pattern of decay by way of adaptation. Communism is a supposed ideal social situation that humanity will evolve into except that its advocates overlook the need for it to further develop... evolve as a made-up concept which has already changed over time in accordance to the conditions of the prevailing social and natural environments. Advocates think they have presently developed an ideal philosophy of Communism when they actually haven't. Communism is like so many religions which are filled with hypocrisy because such ambivalence (schizophrenia) is a perspective that is part of the adaptation to a decaying environment.


  • The closest any Nation gets to the practice of an Actual Democracy is Switzerland, but it too falls short of the greater ideal. Others such as the U.S., practice minimalist exercises embodying various techniques of disfranchisement, propagandized delusion (illusion), obstructionism, obfuscation, and deferment to a minority designated as a "Representative" or Representative body.

  • So-called Democratic countries regularly conceal the weakness of their individualized form of pretend democracy by having to rely on military systems practicing formulas of Socialism and Communism.

  • Liberty, as defined by being free from arbitrary impositions of politically designed authority, does not protect a citizenry from the arbitrariness of politically motivated interpretation which often result in diminished forms of liberty, such as the people having to ask for the government's permission before it can be sued, or prisoners having served their time being unable to vote as free(d) citizens, or the usage of an Electoral College system for voting for a President who is not necessarily the one chosen by the majority of voters in a given election.

  • Freedom, as defined by having the liberty to speak and think without being unnecessarily exposed to civil constraints by a voting process meant to be controlled by the collective Will of the People to vote on which laws the citizenry want to abide by. Yet, in most instances, the public's ability to vote on critical social issues is allocated to a few that the public are legally obliged to accept their decisions on.

  • Justice is often politically defined or arbitrarily rendered... and not too infrequently designed to fill the coffers of a local government or governing agency.

  • The definition of Equality persistently uses arbitrary standards of selectivity sometimes denoted in the extreme, as prejudice and discrimination. A "pure" state of equality is impossible to achieve not only because all people have identifiable differences which can be determined by age, health, culture, intelligence, experience, education, genetics, language, etc...

  • Democracy typically is a modernized form of Aristocracy with a variable leadership (acting as a moving target) denoted as a Plutocracy. As a "moving target" the control of the government can change hands amongst a few who retain some measure of leadership (such as by way of political and financial influence), thus preventing the public from centering its sights on any one individual whose downfall would result in the loss of multiple social "leadership" positions. Conditions have promoted the occurring development of a situation which has been discovered to reveal that it is better for a few to allow periodic changes in leadership amongst a like-minded ilk so as to retain a status-quo limiting Aristocracy; then to let a single person be targeted by the public whose downfall would affect all those sharing in the same social clique of retaining a disproportionate ownership of resources. Hence, Democracies are "Plutocratic Aristocracies" operating under the pretense of a Democracy as a type of camouflaging technique that has evolved due to social circumstances, and not because of some unique intellectual prowess. Plutocratic Aristocracies have shown themselves to embody a mentally advocating a short-term and minimalist-oriented appreciation of natural resources undergoing decay either at the hands of an abusive humanity or as a process of natural overall cosmological attrition.


  • Often gets confused with Communism and under presently practiced formulas, has been applied to "Democratic" standards of socialization, leading some to formulate the notion of "Democratic Socialism", "Socialist Democracy", "Socialized Democracy", or "Democratized Socialism"... and their variants. In any case, neither a professed "ideal" Socialism nor Democracy are being practiced.

  • Like Communism and Democracy, Socialism remains in a developmental phase of its ideology and application. All of them are being subjected to those vying to retain, regain, or obtain the preferential adoption of ideas which become set in stone by their Representative advocates; requiring the public to exercise a larger disproportionate amount of deferent to the views of those wanting to exert control over the public to indulge themselves with an assigned role thought to be needed as a means of achieving particular goals. Yet none of these goals take into consideration an assessment of long-term environmental events whose decay requires adaptation to them as an equilibrium re-adjustment... which does not include efforts meant to remove humanity from the influence of such conditions.

  • It forces the enforcement of allocated redistributions along social venues whose developed presence may be a symptom of a problem unrecognized or inadequately addressed. Allocated redistribution of resources (such as money taken in by taxes) along given social programs are not faithfully reassessed as to cost and provisional acceptance that may be funded due to a governmentally exercised habituation and not as a possible extension of another social condition having risen to the status of being an endemically chronic issue. For example, take the case of Medicare and Medicaid medical insurance costs being waged as needed programs alongside yet another (forced) program called Obamacare. Such a situation provides an example of a triple-standard costliness that does not serve the overall needs of the public that would be better defined and executed as a single Health care system. Such systems as they are now presently practiced create financial burdens which add to medical issues. Such practices of Socialism are anti-thetical to Socialism.

  • It requires and expects public participation for practicing programs whose advocacy of design was implemented by a few without approval of those who are obligated to accept... and thus indulge in a Ponzi-like activity regardless of how little they require a usage of the system. The intended "well-being" of a Socialist practice frequently turns into a "welfare" system that financially punishes those whose health may be excellent because of genetics and/or conscientiousness to a healthful lifestyle. The lack of needing medical intervention (routine exams notwithstanding), could be proportionately rewarded by some supplemental regain of investment that may be applied for personal interests.

  • Socialist practices today typically require over-bearing expectations of compliance fraught with rules, regulations, means testing measures, etc., that can deny a person the ability to participate in a program but they are nonetheless required to help support financially and ideologically.

  • State ownership of property is always filtered through the prism of those who gain a position of determining how, when, where, why and by whom the label "state ownership" is to be applied.

  • Sociological altruism imposes a loss of liberty that individuals attempt to get compensation for by expressing forms of personal freedom that are not always healthy for themselves, for their society or the species as a whole. It unnecessarily promotes the requirement of adopting a sociological-based psychology that defines itself as a preeminence of value whose advocacy should not be disputed because it is culturally taught to embody the riches of humanistic values, even if its humanism means that one is to obsessively deny that it is a result of adaptation in an environment of decay not recognized, diminished to irrelevance because of the presumed time spans involved, or simply denied because it doesn't fit in with the goals of one's singularly subjective personal goals.

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.

Page Initially Created: Sunday, 14-Aug-2016... 05:23 AM
Page First posted: Monday, 15-Aug-2016... 08:02 AM
Updated Page: Sunday, 18-June-2017... 6:36 AM