The Next Stage of Development
~ Prologue page 3 ~
~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
Visitors as of 1st Feb 2020
| Preface page 1 | Preface page 2 | Preface page 3 |
| Preface page 1b | Preface page 2b | Preface page 3b |
| ANC Prologue Page 1 |
ANC Prologue Page 2 |
ANC Prologue Page 3 |
| ANC Prologue Page 1b |
| Communism and Societal Collapse |
| ANC Epilogue Page 1 |
ANC Epilogue Page 2 |
ANC Epilogue Page 3 |
In a basic sense, Communism refers to Communalism and Commonism. Everybody works and lives and plays in a communal setting for the benefit of everyone else. No crime can be permitted because this then entails the usage of a distinction between criminal and non-criminal, thus needing for the usage of a classification system that portrays the usage of a class system. In a formula of Communism that does not permit a class system, criminals can not be permitted and must be eliminated at once. We can not have people exhibiting criminal behavior unless everyone is permitted to exhibit criminality. This is commonness in the extreme practice thereof.
Likewise for genius, talent, giftedness, beauty, etc. Hence, a Communism which stresses "commonism" needs to have a society of cloned people. There are neither leaders nor followers. Everyone exists by way of a common instinct that is assumed to be due to a common influence created by the idea of a singular common god that has one name, one face, one personhood, and therefore must be worshipped in the same way with the same language. Diversity is not permitted unless it is agreed upon as an expression of commonness. Hence, the definition of commonness becomes commonly defined to represent a believed-in commonly accepted non-commonness, thus opening the door to other vagaries of non-common commonness, such as exists today under the various phony democracies.
And since we permit varying types of non-common commonness, so too does this apply to the notion of what is meant by communalism. One community on one part of the Earth need not be exactly like all other communities due to the uncommonness of weather, terrain, language, race, culture, etc... Unless of course we establish some basic level of communal commonness such that everyone must have access to a toilet, washing facilities, education, food, medicine, legal representation, etc... And does this also mean everyone is to get the same wage and benefits? Is everyone to be taxed the same? Will the government then claim to be a Saviour-like entity that provides the necessary funds instead of as being a mechanism through which funding is provided according to the dictates of a few whose "consent to represent the public" comes by way of a rigged elections system that restrictively guards the entrance into the elections system, stages the props for the elections arena, and details which exit signs are to be used? Should we expect anything different from the current models of Communism, or are we to be confronted by something claimed to be "New" yet old ideas are played out by different people with different costumes speaking a different language but with the same underlying motivations?
The old Communisms, the old Socialism like the many varieties of democracy being practiced today with varying results; are all problematic. Humans are more apt to provide an excuse for a given practice they are familiar with and have become both comfortable and accustomed to by developing a survival niche', than they are in providing for an effective effort to make provisions for introducing, much less practicing some different technique of social self-governance. Given the situation that most people find some measure of adapting to and adopting a given system of governance they are subjected to if not born into, multiple types of government are feasible, though admittedly, with varying results. Nonetheless, present uses of government must be viewed as those programs which are situations people have adapted to and make accommodations for, with or without an extensive personalized philosophy in agreement with or harboring an opposition to because of flaws used to label a greater malfunction and supposed underlying bad basic design that has an incorporated failsafe mechanism which prevents any appreciably larger alteration to take place... even if it would eventually produce a far better measure of equality.
However, no system of government in use today and no socio-political doctrine being advocated today speaks to the desire of actually wanting to function with a pure form of equatability. All systems of government permit enclaves of personalized practices of expected entitlement within and sometimes amongst other enclaves. As such, we find people seeking out enclaves which practice their religion, or their cultural values, or their sexual orientation, or their business interest, or their academic interest, or some other social interest. And within those enclaves which can otherwise be labeled a cult, there are particularized entitlement expectations as rewards for a given patriotism, fidelity, faithfulness, extended participation, patience, virtue, compliance, regard, observation, vernacular, dress, etc... While some expect an eventual reward of being admitted to whatever design of a heaven they can imagine, others want a career to be established, or money to be made, or a record to be set, or some feat to be accomplished, or an event to occur, or simply view themselves as having been a participant in something believed to be as making a difference, or making history, or fulfilling a promise. Yet most, if not all people live with some measure of nonsense even if they do not readily acknowledge it. Those who are aware of their practiced nonsense readily admit that if they did not engage in the one(s) which they do, some other form of nonsense that humans are prone to exhibit, will most likely take its place. So they simply choose to make do with what they know, instead of trying out some other form of nonsense. This being said, it should also be noted that some forms of nonsense are actually worse than others and that when placed side by side, a hierarchy of nonsense could be created with the added feature of recognizing that one person bad, worse and terrible nonsense may well be defined as another's good, better and best. (Like one person's impossible-to-climb mountain is another's taken-for-granted and stepped on ant hill.)
Some of the nonsense of past Communisms have been terrible, as measured by the senseless of death and destruction and dead end projects that were practiced. Which is also the case for every single democracy as well. They have come by way of a similar practice of varying terrible forms of nonsense except that they occurred so far in the distant past, away from journalists acting as sports casters giving a blow-by-blow account, and not recorded by historians who have a literary talent for describing the horrors in a way to both capture and offensively disgust modern tastes. But, how does one describe the stench of rotting flesh and a field of ankle deep mud mixed with guts and blood amongst dead bodies and armaments others try to engage their labeled enemy that must be killed up front and close enough to smell their sweat and soiled clothes if not rotting teeth and bad breath?
Because of the atrocities displayed by past attempts to instill a communist-styled government in countries with large scale representations of illiterate citizens living a hand-to-mouth empty belly, poor nutrition, lack of medical care, and fear of government reprisals for not paying a tax that often exhibited a usurious quality of existence, why should a mostly literate, fed, and medically provided citizenry who do not live in fear of government reprisals, want to adopt a Communism if such a practice is set on a course to take away freedoms in order to assert what its advocates believe, in their minds, to be a more equitable way of life? Why should a citizenry with millions of people who practice some sort of spirituality want to embrace a government that gives the impression of wanting to effect a policy of repression and religious intolerance which caused many to seek out some other place to live, and along with it a desire for greater, potentially unlimited prosperity?
Why would anyone want to adopt a socio-political philosophy advocated by those who exhibit the same type of self-centered obsession that current forms of socio-political advocates of democracy, libertarianism, anarchism, Corporatism, sociology, religion and all other philosophies do? What is to be gained if the only gain is to satisfy Communist advocates in their desire to establish a functioning Communism consisting of millions of adherents, but has no greater goal for its own development— that it, like all other government strategies is obsessed with itself like a narcissistic personality lacking a consciousness beyond its own image? Why is there no widespread evolutionary development amongst Communist thinkers to move beyond the former doctrines of nonsense and adopt an enlarged perspicuity involving the insight from other subjects? Instead of Marx and Engles recognizing the wide-spread prevalence of spiritual practice in multiple forms and identifying it as a recurring pattern of human cognition, they instead choose to project their personal feelings onto the phenomena and denigrate it; thus setting themselves up to be negatively received by millions of people whom they would otherwise kill or force them to believe as they do. This is particularly stupid given the fact that many religious orientations adopt some measure of Communism in the form of communalistic cooperation for the benefit of all.
Religion, or let us say spirituality... a focus on something beyond oneself, is part of the hierarchy of human consciousness. However, just because Marx and Engles displayed an antagonism towards it does not mean advocates of Communism today need to use them as their intellectual role models. Those advocating a Communism today need to think for themselves. They need to align their own knowledge into a respective hierarchy, a respective lineage, if this is the model of thinking which serves them best and enables them to articulate their ideas to others with the most beneficial results. If a basic tenet of Communism is to be cited as a Communal setting with a shared... a common philosophy which embraces a selfless concern for the welfare and well-being of one's fellow human beings, what is to be the philosophy in regard to those who don't share this interest? Like many Communists and others who want to engage in a revolt against current governments, what will be the practice against those who want to stage a revolt against a Communism that becomes the dominant functional government? How does one's Communism provide for an equality of goods and services if the goods and services being used as an example are those made possible by a type of Capitalism that is not to be permitted to function? As the level and types of goods and services fall victim to a loss of Capitalism, is the only equality to be shared that which is to be described as an impoverishment for the majority while a minority in leadership positions are only marginally affected?
Typically, for the majority to experience a rise in an equal share of "available" (not necessarily automatically provided) goods and services, the leadership must have a proportionate increase in their disproportion of direct access to both quantitatively and qualitatively higher levels of goods and services. Because they are in a position whereby a pooling of resources is directed, this atmosphere can incline them to think they are deserving of larger proportions by default. They place themselves in a perspective of viewing themselves as deserving to be a permanent fixture in a hierarchical position of a personalized lineage of expectation. It is a classification system that is part of one or more other classification systems whether or not the person is aware of them. It is a thought which brings us full circle back to the topic of social stratification as a functional part of human cognition that may be an artifact of the Earthly environment, though most people do not appear to be this philosophically-minded.
Distinguishing a lineage, a grade, a developmental staging such as from a Democracy through a Socialism to a Communism, is the usage of a classification system and thus admits to a class-based mentality. Hence, there is no actual absence of a classification mentality. If we think to create an education system without a hierarchical level of classrooms typically measured from 1st to 12th grade and then from a Bachelor's, Master's, and PhD lineage, are we to have one-room classrooms like in the days of the Old American West as portrayed in some motion pictures? A New Communist doctrine must indicate a full cognizance of this and readily show that the usage of classifications is a given and can not be side-stepped by any model of mental gymnastics. The same goes for the practice of spirituality and a market place based Capitalism, unless there is a dramatic shift in the usage of a government as a methodology by which the whole of a society is focused on a singular goal. If there are a multiplicity of goals, then energies and resources are partitioned out... very often disproportionately.
To advocate a Communism which stresses a commonism, is difficult when humanity is a mixture of different peoples. Unless one views everyone as a singular entity labeled "Human" or some other designation, the usage of an intent to establish a commonism is a fool's errand. If we establish the notion of a "common people" and then a "common leadership", we have adopted the practice of distinguishing a difference and thus a classification, even if it is forbidden for anyone to label it as being representative of social class divisions. Likewise when we distinguish between different jobs, different work schedules, different eating, drinking and sleeping habits, etc... The fact that anyone would want to advocate a "common ownership" or "state ownership" means that they are practicing a cognitive system of classification, even if it is not written down, discussed or otherwise made public. Classification means the usage of some sort of hierarchical arrangement, even if it is graphically represented as some supposed side-by-side attempted arrangement of equality since one must putting something 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd, etc. Simply claiming a list of items is the same doesn't change the fact that in a process of elimination, one is chosen above others. Even if one does not make a choice, the absence of a choice is also a choice, just as would be in choosing all or none. All of these choices are a classification. Just because there would be no claimed social class distinctions does not mean there would be an absence of classification taking place such as for example in the job one wanted to do, the person whom they would want to marry, the number of children... if any, and so on.
Neither Marx, Engles, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Trotsky and all the others were political, sociological, economic, philosophical, etc., geniuses. If you think they were or are, then you are as dumb as a bag of rocks. You can't possibly participate in the development of a New Communism or any other socio-political philosophy to be comprehensively applied in any practical manner if you can't intellectually move beyond their idiocy. Pay your respects to the dead and move on. You don't need to keep coming back to their graves with flowers and other tributes while reading their doctrinal headstones as if they were sacred words written by a deity that Marx didn't believe in anyway. All of them used a method of distinction which is a formula of classification and thus references a socialization based upon class. There is no such thing as a classless society, even if the participants in a society are too ignorant to recognize their usage of such. Harping on the need for the establishment of a future classless society is a distraction from the larger need of developing a philosophy that emphasizes a single goal shared by everyone. Setting up a Communist government is not a goal, it is a program that must be flexible enough to make allowance for further progressive development to itself as the model of a blueprint that is not written in stone and to which corrections can be made to further the collective goal and not necessarily the program being used at a given time to promote the best measures by which the goal might be achieved.
All forms of government are developed and run by those who seek to maintain the system so long as it is seen as a benefit to them, unless they are in a position which would assist them in over-throwing a given formula of government if it did not help them to maintain some advantage they wanted. Governments are typically viewed as a means to an end in a search for any further form of government and are vigilant in their effort to prevent any change that would undermine the control of a system by those in charge. While social programs adopted by a government may be significantly altered or even discontinued, governments do not view themselves as trial and error social exercises of human cognition in search for a means by which humanity might be progressively improved. Governments are viewed as a finality in and of themselves, with change and improvement defined by those who are elected or otherwise come to power and make or don't make any changes.
In searching for a means to bring about progressive changes, there have been attempts by otherwise well-intentioned despots whose actions have come to be noted as "Enlightened Despotism" or "Benevolent Despotism" or "Enlightened Absolutism". However, like all government reformers, they could not imagine that the system itself was in any way problematic and was in need of a dramatic reform itself. Most government reformers want to establish a government that never comes to be questioned about its own relevance. Current models of government see themselves as being Enlightened and Benevolent just like Socialists and Communists claim their efforts are in their designs, if only they could be given a chance to prove themselves. They come to think that once their formula of government is established there will be no need for any other form, only adjustments (tweaks) to the system now and again. Hence, so called "Enlightened" rulers are rather limited in the type of enlightenment to which they ascribe themselves to.
List of Enlightened Despots from the Wikipedia:
- Catherine the Great of Russia
- Carlos III of Spain
- Frederick the Great of Prussia
- Frederick VI of Denmark
- Gustav III of Sweden
- Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor of Austria
- Joseph I of Portugal (through his minister the Marquis of Pombal)
- Maria Theresa of Austria
- Leopold I, Grand Duke of Tuscany
- Louis XVI of France
- Maria Carolina of Austria, Queen of Naples
- Christian VII of Denmark (through his minister Johann Friedrich Struensee)
- Napoleon Bonaparte
- Napoleon III
- Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden
"Enlightened Despotism" or "Benevolent Despotism" (and Enlightened absolutism) is a form of government in the 18th century in which absolute monarchs pursued legal, social, and educational reforms inspired by the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries). Among the most prominent enlightened despots were Frederick II (the Great, King of Prussia), Peter I (the Great, Tsar of Russia), Catherine II (the Great, Empress of Russia), Maria Theresa (archduchess of Austria and queen of Hungary and Bohemia), Joseph II (Holy Roman emperor, at first co-ruler with his mother, Maria Theresa [1765–80], and then sole ruler [1780–90] of the Austrian Hapsburg dominions.), and Leopold II (Holy Roman emperor who also became King of Hungary and Archduke of Austria who was the third son of the Hapsburg Maria Theresa and the emperor Francis I.). They typically instituted administrative reform, religious toleration, and economic development but did not propose reforms that would undermine their sovereignty or disrupt the social order.
"enlightened despotism." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Characteristics of Enlightenment can be found in different ideas about ideal situations otherwise to be denoted as (after-life) goals:
- Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) require you to die before you may be able to enter into their idea of paradise.
- Buddhism: n Buddhism, enlightenment (called bodhi in Indian Buddhism, or satori in Zen Buddhism) is when a Buddhist finds the truth about life and stops being reborn because they have reached Nirvana. Once you get to Nirvana you are not born again. Buddhists believe a person can become enlightened by following the Middle Way.
- Hinduism: The monotheistic Heaven is but a way station to THE Heaven, which is presumed to be the true heaven amongst all beliefs. Reaching THE Heaven thus ends the cycle of death and rebirth, whereby the conveyor belt of reincarnation is turned off and one's existence is no longer tide to this indentured servitude-like philosophical belief. In other words, the people are freed from having to participate in the menagerie of belief practiced in the different variations of Hinduism which make up an Earthly existence.
- Enlightenment philosophers: Enlightenment thinkers wanted to improve human conditions on earth rather than concern themselves with religion and the afterlife. These thinkers valued reason, science, religious tolerance, and what they called “natural rights”—life, liberty, and property. Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government
Japanese Shintoism:
Two different views of the world were present in ancient Shinto-. One was the three-dimensional view in which the Plain of High Heaven (Takama no Hara, the kami's world), Middle Land (Nakatsukuni, the present world), and the Hades (Yomi no Kuni, the world after death) were arranged in vertical order. The other view was a two-dimensional one in which this world and the Perpetual Country (Tokoyo, a utopian place far beyond the sea) existed in horizontal order. Though the three-dimensional view of the world (which is also characteristic of North Siberian and Mongolian shamanistic culture) became the representative view observed in Japanese myths, the two-dimensional view of the world (which is also present in Southeast Asian culture) was dominant among the populace.
Confucianism is believed to have reached Japan in the 5th century CE, and by the 7th century it had spread among the people, together with Chinese Taoism and yin-yang (harmony of two basic forces of nature) philosophy. All of these stimulated the development of Shinto- ethical teachings. With the gradual centralization of political power, Shinto- began to develop as a national cult as well. Myths of various clans were combined and reorganized into a pan-Japanese mythology with the Imperial Household as its centre. The kami of the Imperial Household and the tutelary kami of powerful clans became the kami of the whole nation and people, and offerings were made by the state every year. Such practices were systematized supposedly around the start of the Taika-era reforms in 645. By the beginning of the 10th century, about 3,000 shrines throughout Japan were receiving state offerings. As the power of the central government declined, however, the system ceased to be effective, and after the 13th century only a limited number of important shrines continued to receive the Imperial offerings. Later, after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the old system was revived.
- Shintoism (of Japan, in contrast to Buddhism which had been introduced into Japan in the 6th century CE), can be roughly classified into three major
types. These three types of Shinto- are interrelated: Folk Shinto- exists as the substructure of Shinto- faith, and a Sect Shinto- follower is usually also a
parishioner (ujiko) of a particular Shinto- shrine:
- Shrine Shinto- (Jinja Shinto-), which has been in existence from the beginning of Japanese history to the present day, constitutes a main current of Shinto- tradition. Shrine Shinto- includes within its structure the now defunct State Shinto- (Kokka Shinto-)—based on the total identity of religion and state—and has close relations with the Japanese Imperial family.
- Sect Shinto- (Kyo-ha Shinto-) is a relatively new movement consisting of 13 major sects that originated in Japan around the 19th century and of several others that emerged after World War II. Each sect was organized into a religious body by either a founder or a systematizer.
- Folk Shinto- (Minzoku Shinto-) is an aspect of Japanese folk belief that is closely connected with the other types of Shinto-. It has no formal organizational structure nor doctrinal formulation but is centred in the veneration of small roadside images and in the agricultural rites of rural families.
Communists of today present Communism as some sort of "afterlife" goal, where this present existence in which Democracy and Socialism are being practiced are a 'before and during life' which is being observed by a practice of Democracy, Socialism, religions, Capitalism, etc... Some Communists hold the view that they are merely biding their time, awaiting the right conditions in which Communism will be best suited for future circumstances to make its full debut. In a sense, Communists can be said to view Communism as a purification rite-of-passage into right thinking, right feeling, right living, where as "state of Communism" is to exist as some enlightened achievement through which humanity might better achieve its calling and enter into a blissful stage of existence. The fact that Communism reflects images of reflecting religious thought must be viewed in terms of a type of human mentality model or sketch which presents itself in the form and fashion of the person's interests and vernacular. In the case of Communism, it became prismatically exhibited by the experiences of Marx and Engles and their interest with its accompanying vocabulary. In a different time and place with a different vocabulary, Marx and Engles might well be portrayed as the purveyors of yet another religion or life philosophy catalogued elsewhere than a predominant presence in Sociology, Political Science and Economic texts and associated excursions into different philosophical discussions. And true to the fashion of thinking found in different religious and nature-heavy philosophies which speak of a life cycle (though lacking insight into the now obvious incremental deterioration of the planet, solar system and galaxy... if not the entire Universe as we know it), Communism and all the other socio-political doctrines speak in terms of having a similar perspective, whether or not they come right out and specifically say so with great detail. The do not incorporate plans for removing humanity from these deteriorations as a major governmental functionality, though time is not the friend humanity assumes it to be. Time is an enemy. A very deceitful, back-stabbing, two-faced, double-dealing entity that humanity has partnered with in integrally-embraced manner. Time is an enemy. It is a foe. It is the scorpion asking for the turtle to give it passage across a body of water, all the while asserting and insisting it means the turtle no harm.
Being able to look back on those in ancient Monarchies who were considered benevolent and sincerely wanted to bring about reforms but could not see that their models of government were on the threshold of obsolescence, is a hindsight that can provide us with the foresight of harboring the reasonable assumption that the similarly considered benevolence and enlightened perspectives of today's political leaderships are in a position much like the former monarchs in their monarchies. We the people are paying witness to the stages of development which will bring about the obsolescence of today's governments because they are out of step with the underlying needs of the people as a species in its many struggles for survival on a planet that will become humanity's entombment if it does not take radical, concerted steps to focus all its resources and energies on getting off the planet, away from the solar system and distant from the Milky way galaxy.
Unfortunately, not only are government leaderships of today blinded by their own egotistical concerns— despite their benevolence and enlightened orientations of wanting to be helpful— but there are those advocating for the usage of old ideas such as Marx and Engles' flavored Communisms being perpetually provided in different guises by otherwise well-intentioned individuals who honestly believe in their deluded appreciations. So the people are being provided a choice between governments in use that are heading along a course of obsolescence without a guarantee that the transition to a New form of Government will be easy and smooth; and those who are advocating for the adoption of ideas which have already proven they are formulas of obsolescence because they are being presented as goals instead of dynamically responsive and malleable tools or programs which might better assist humanity in a collectively singular goal. The old Communisms appreciably lack the sophistication of a Confucianist approach at creating a type of political structure more amiable to the needs of the public from a ground-up teaching approach that would affect a transformation of the government to practice a greater ideal. The old Communisms are not particularly that philosophically astute. And yet, like a here-and-now Machiavellian real-world approach to circumstances in a given era, Confucian is all a here-and-now approach with the added feature of attempting to look into the future but never beyond the grasp of practicing Confucianists with their day-to-day applications reminiscent of someone engage in compiling an actuarial ledger and codification.
To make the establishment of a particular government the primary goal that a society should focus its energies and resources on is the vision of those who are short-sighted egotists who have projected themselves into a given belief as an embodiment of their interests. To effect the usage of their belief affords them with a legitimacy of their own life. It has nothing to do with the heart, mind and soul of humanity. The old Communist beliefs are varying magnitudes of obsolescence. We need a New Communism. Not as the primary goal, but as an adjustable tool, a malleable model, an erasable blueprint by which humanity can more effectively and efficiently assume a collectively productive singular effort utilizing all resources and energies to reach the goal of effecting a means by which the species can provide for its continued existence beyond the incremental deteriorations of Earth, its solar system, and the larger galaxy. It is a bold and ambitious program, but humanity loves a challenge. It loves to confront seemingly insurmountable odds because in the known Universe, humanity is the underdog and many of us instinctively assist those who are disadvantaged.
Date of Origination: Friday, January 23rd, 2020... 2:47 AMInitial Posting: Saturday, Februray 1st, 2020... 12:28 PM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com