Threesology Research Journal
A New Communism
The State of Private and Collective Ownership
Revelation page 5

~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org


website translator plugin

Flag Counter
Visitors as of 1st Feb 2020

Preface: A New Communism Preface page 2 Preface page 3

Communism and Societal Collapse

ANC
Prologue
Page 1
ANC
Prologue
Page 2
ANC
Prologue
Page 3

ANC page 1 ANC page 2 ANC page 3 ANC page 4
ANC page 5 ANC page 6 ANC page 7 ANC page 8
ANC Revelation
Page 1
ANC Revelation
Page 2
ANC Revelation
Page 3
ANC Revelation
Page 4
ANC Revelation
Page 5
ANC Revelation
Page 6
ANC Revelation
Page 7
ANC Revelation
Page 8

ANC
Epilogue
Page 1
ANC
Epilogue
Page 2
ANC
Epilogue
Page 3



Communism is the idea of those who seek to introduce a greater equilibrium in the Estate of existence we call Humanity. While there are multiple other ideas whose advocates feel their views are either equal to or greater than Communism, it is both Communism and Socialism, in different varieties, which have gained the greater tractions in proposing an alternative to the variations under which the idea of a Democracy is practiced in different guises. And this includes the introduction of a partnership between Socialism and Democracy either labeled a Socialist Democracy or a Democratic Socialism, each with their own versions of adding and subtracting elements of Capitalism as practiced in governments which claim themselves to be Democracies. The arrangement of the words 'Socialism' and 'Democracy' in the foregoing phrasings of "Socialist Democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" indicates both the time period of usage and the emphasizes being placed on either Socialism or Democracy, at least from a linguistic point of view. From some perspectives, it is Democracy putting on a cloak of Socialism and in the other case it is Socialism putting on the cloak of Democracy to conceal real ulterior motives behind advocates, and some may even use the terms inter-changeably depending on the venue political discussions are taking place. (I use the term "cloak" though it is rather ancient, it however has some referential meaning amongst the young, while the word "wrap" as I was brought up saying, is a term that is out-moded.) In addition, Democracies do not routinely allow themselves to be aligned with a political philosophy which asserts a "Communist Democracy" or a "Democratic Communism", since the two are seen more as antagonists to one another and not simply rivalrous cognitive siblings as do the terms Democracy and Socialism, though there are those that view Socialism and Communism as being the same, while there actually significant distinctions to be made.

(Social Democracy is a) political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former's repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society.

The social-democratic movement grew out of the efforts of August Bebel, who with Wilhelm Liebknecht cofounded the German Social Democratic Workers' Party in 1869 and then effected the merger of their party with the General German Workers' Union in 1875 to form what came to be called the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands). Bebel imbued social democracy with the belief that socialism must be installed through lawful means rather than by force. After the election of two Social Democrats to the Reichstag in 1871, the party grew in political strength until in 1912 it became the largest single party in voting strength, with 110 out of 397 seats in the Reichstag. The success of the Social Democratic Party in Germany encouraged the spread of social democracy to other countries in Europe.


("social democracy." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.)



The socialist experiments of the 20th century were motivated by a genuine interest in improving life for the masses, but the results instead delivered untold suffering in terms of economic depravation and political tyranny. Nonetheless, the egalitarian values that inspired the socialist experiments continue to possess great intellectual and moral appeal. And while socialism has proved less attractive than democratic capitalism, many of the most normatively attractive elements of socialism have been incorporated into democratic systems, as evidenced by public support for spending on social programs.

The chief economic problem of socialism has been the efficient performance of the very task for which its planning apparatus exists—namely, the effective coordination of production and distribution. Modern critics have declared that a planned economy is impossible—i.e., will inevitably become unmanageably chaotic—by virtue of the need for a planning agency to make the millions of dovetailing decisions necessary to produce the gigantic catalog of goods and services of a modern society. Moreover, classical economists would criticize the perverse incentives caused by the absence of private property rights. Precisely such problems became manifest in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union.

The proposed remedy to the problems of socialism involves the use of market arrangements under which managers are free to conduct the affairs of their enterprises according to the dictates of supply and demand (rather than those of a central authority). The difficulty with this solution lies in its political rather than economic requirements, because the acceptance of a market system entrusted with the coordination of the bulk of economic activity requires the tolerance of a sphere of private authority apart from that of public authority. A market mechanism may be compatible with a society of socialist principles, but it requires that the forms of socialist societies as they now exist be radically reorganized. The political difficulties of such a reorganization are twofold. One difficulty arises from the tensions that can be expected to exist between the private interests, and no doubt the public visions, of the managerial echelons and those of the political regime. The creation of a market is tantamount to the creation of a realm within society into which the political arm of government is not allowed to reach fully.


  • Robert L. Hienbroner- Norman Thomas Professor Emeritus of Economics, New School for Social Research, New York City. Author of The Worldly Philosophers; The Nature and Logic of Capitalism; and others.
  • Peter J. Boettke- Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. Editor of The Review of Austrian Economics and New Thinking in Political Economy.


Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates for political democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within market socialism, or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism, democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism. As a term, democratic socialism was popularized by social democrats who were opposed to the authoritarian development of socialism in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century. The origins of democratic socialism can be traced to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the British Chartist movement that somewhat differed in their goals yet all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production as positive characteristics of the society they advocated for. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, democratic socialism was also influenced by social democracy. The gradualist form of socialism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in Germany influenced the development of democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is what most socialists understand by the concept of socialism. As a result, democratic socialism may be a very broad or more limited concept. It can refer to all forms of socialism that are democratic and reject an authoritarian Marxist–Leninist state, including libertarian socialism, reformist socialism and revolutionary socialism as well as ethical socialism, liberal socialism, social democracy and some forms of democratic state socialism and utopian socialism.

Democratic socialism is contrasted to Marxism–Leninism which is viewed as being authoritarian or undemocratic in practice. Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Soviet-type economic system, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and the centralised administrative command economy that took form in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states during the 20th century. Democratic socialism is also distinguished from the Third Way on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas supporters of the centrist Third Way are opposed to ending capitalism.

While having socialism as a long-term goal, modern social democrats are more concerned to curb capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day. In contrast, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere under a different guise. Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist economic system with socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.


Democratic socialism



The Third Way is a position akin to centrism that attempts to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of centre-right and centrist economic platforms with some centre-left social policies. The Third Way was created as a re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to doubt regarding the economic viability of the state and the overuse of economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularised by Keynesianism, but which at that time contrasted with the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. The Third Way is promoted by social liberals and some social democratic parties.


Third Way

Previously, I have named these three as adolescents inacting a sibiling rivalry; like three brothers (or sisters or mix and match as you will), who are engaged in vying for the dominant position to play out the part of who is going to end up ruling the kingdom of humanity. It's like so many fairytales that have been sung, recited, retold, acted out, and transferred from one generation to the next with changes in characters, dress, situations and language idioms attached as they are shared from one culture to the next. They have become part of an active folklore that is taking on mythological proportions obtaining the status of a symbolized riddle akin to the question of why the chicken crossed the road, but romaticized into representing some irrevocable time-honored truth called a fable, such as those contemplated by Aesop.

However, it should be noted that along with rivalry, triplets (like twins) can create intense bonds, if not mutually beneficial, then equally destructive in that the intensity is manifest in the form of an obsessive-compulsion in terms of a destructive instead of a constructive relationship, but is to be distinguished from the intrusive thought patterns consistent with Relationship OCD: Relationship OCD, also known as Relationship Substantiation or ROCD, is a subset of OCD in which sufferers are consumed with doubts about their relationship. They question their love for their partner, their attraction to their partner, their compatibility with their partner, and their partner’s love for them.

Each of the three siblings professes to provide the better state of equilibrium to be achieved, though they, from the perspectives of their advocates, claim to be advancing what is to be an era of ultimate progressiveness... a liberation from the past and present insufficiencies of social self-governance that may be described as the final Renaissance, the penultimate Age of Enlightenment akin to the notion of some Heaven on Earth, if not THE spiritual abode of God, Buddha, Mohammed as well as all the other Hinduistic, Chinese, Japanese etc., orientation. Yes, this is what is being described by so many adherents and advocates of the Marxist/Engles-Leninist-Maoist-Stalinist-Trotskyism-Castroism-Westernism, etc. formulas of Communism. Apparently invariant in all of these views is a central point in which it is claimed that some supposed lower working class-designated as the Proletariat is to rise up in revolt against some supposed valuation of a Middle managerial/working class-designated as the Bourgeoisie, but the Upper class primarily becomes left out of the equation. Yet, what then happens to this logic if either or both of the classes reject such distinctions? Whereas getting an impoverished person to revolt is one thing, or getting a working class person denied a living wage and basic provisions is yet another reason to revolt, what then for a working class that receives a living wage and has a means to obtain basic commodities and benefits? Where is the incentive for a revolt when the basic worker is satisfied with receiving some basic wage and basic forms of benefits? Clearly this rationale is not that which creates the mood for a Revolution to take place.

Definition of Enlightenment:

  • Your Dictionary: Enlightenment is defined as being advanced and having gained necessary information or knowledge, especially spiritual knowledge.
  • Dictionary.com: the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement of the 18th century, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and by innovations in political, religious, and educational doctrine.
    • Prajna: (Buddhism, Hinduism) pure and unqualified knowledge.
  • The Enlightenment:
    • "The English term Enlightenment is itself a translation, coined in the late 19th century, of two distinct terms, both in use in the 18th century: the French term lumières and the German Aufklärung. The two have in common the idea of 'light,'" wrote John Robertson, a professor of the history of political thought at the University of Cambridge in his book "The Enlightenment: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University Press, 2015).
    • In this so-called time of light, several major ideas became popular. There was growing skepticism toward monarchs, particularly the idea of an absolute monarch — one who could make laws on a whim. There was also growing support for individual liberties and freedoms. "The palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise," wrote Thomas Paine (1737-1809) in his pamphlet "Common Sense" (published in 1776).

Indeed, Marxist evaluation and the evaluation by so many other Marxist leaning advocates is a poor judgment of history. It is not the proletariat or peasants who customarily begin and sustain a Revolution, however, let us take a peak at history to view some exceptions and the role in which Religious leaders played in the opposition of the people being able to obtain basic rights:




  • Peasant Revolution: ("Peasants' Revolt." Encyclopædia Britannica.)

Also called Wat Tyler's Rebellion (occurring in 1381), (and was the) first great popular rebellion in English history. Its immediate cause was the imposition of the unpopular poll tax of 1381, which brought to a head the economic discontent that had been growing since the middle of the century. The rebellion drew support from several sources and included well-to-do artisans and villeins as well as the destitute. Probably the main grievance of the agricultural labourers and urban working classes was the Statute of Labourers (1351), which attempted to fix maximum wages during the labour shortage following the Black Death.

The uprising was centred in the southeastern counties and East Anglia, with minor disturbances in other areas. It began in Essex in May, taking the government of the young king Richard II by surprise. In June rebels from Essex and Kent marched toward London. On the 13th the Kentish men, under Wat Tyler, entered London, where they massacred some Flemish merchants and razed the palace of the king's uncle, the unpopular John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. The government was compelled to negotiate. On the 14th Richard met the men of Essex outside London at Mile End, where he promised cheap land, free trade, and the abolition of serfdom and forced labour. During the king's absence, the Kentish rebels in the city forced the surrender of the Tower of London; the chancellor, Archbishop Simon of Sudbury, and the treasurer, Sir Robert Hales, both of whom were held responsible for the poll tax, were beheaded.

The king met Tyler and the Kentishmen at Smithfield on the following day. Tyler was treacherously cut down in Richard's presence by the enraged mayor of London. The king, with great presence of mind, appealed to the rebels as their sovereign and, after promising reforms, persuaded them to disperse. The crisis in London was over, but in the provinces the rebellion reached its climax in the following weeks. It was finally ended when the rebels in East Anglia under John Litster were crushed by the militant bishop of Norwich, Henry le Despenser, on about June 25.

The rebellion lasted less than a month and failed completely as a social revolution. King Richard's promises at Mile End and Smithfield were promptly forgotten, and manorial discontent continued to find expression in local riots. The rebellion succeeded, however, as a protest against the taxation of poorer classes insofar as it prevented further levying of the poll tax.

  • Peasants War: (Peasants' War." Encyclopædia Britannica.)

(This refers to the) 1524–25 peasant uprising in Germany. Inspired by changes brought by the Reformation, peasants in western and southern Germany invoked divine law to demand agrarian rights and freedom from oppression by nobles and landlords. As the uprising spread, some peasant groups organized armies. Although the revolt was supported by Huldrych Zwingli (Swiss Protestant Reformationist who was at odds with Martin Luther) and Thomas Müntzer (German Radical Reformationist who later was at odds with Martin Luther but viewed favorably by 20th Century Marxists): its condemnation by Martin Luther contributed to its defeat, principally by the army of the Swabian League. Some 100,000 peasants were killed. Reprisals and increased restrictions discouraged further attempts to improve the peasants' plight.

  • Peasant insurgencies of France: ("France." Encyclopædia Britannica; Isser Woloch: Professor of History, Columbia University. Author of Jacobin Legacy: The Democratic Movement under the Directory and others. & Jeremy David Popkin: Professor of History, University of Kentucky, Lexington.)

By any standard, the fall of the Bastille (July 14, 1789) to the Parisian crowd was a spectacular symbolic event—a seemingly miraculous triumph of the people against the power of royal arms. The heroism of the crowd and the blood of its martyrs—ordinary Parisian artisans, tradesmen, and workers—sanctified the patriot cause. Most important, the elites and the people of Paris had made common cause, despite the inherent distrust and social distance between them. The mythic unity of the Third Estate—endlessly invoked by patriot writers and orators—seemed actually to exist, if only momentarily. Before this awesome material and moral force, Louis XVI capitulated. He did not want civil war in the streets. The Parisian insurrection of July 14 not only saved the National Assembly from dissolution but altered the course of the Revolution by giving it a far more active, popular, and violent dimension. On July 17 the king traveled to Paris, where he publicly donned a cockade bearing a new combination of colours: white for the Bourbons and blue and red for the city of Paris. This tricolour was to become the new national flag.

Peasants in the countryside, meanwhile, carried on their own kind of rebellion, which combined traditional aspirations and anxieties with support of the patriot cause. The peasant revolt was autonomous, yet it reinforced the urban uprising to the benefit of the National Assembly.

Competition over the ownership and use of land had intensified in many regions. Peasants owned only about 40 percent of the land, leasing or share-cropping the rest from the nobility, the urban middle class, and the church. Population growth and subdivision of the land from generation to generation was reducing the margin of subsistence for many families. Innovations in estate management—the grouping of leaseholds, conversion of arable land to pasture, enclosure of open fields, division of common land at the lord's initiative, discovery of new seigneurial dues or arrears in old ones—exasperated peasant tenants and small-holders. Historians debate whether these were capitalistic innovations or traditional varieties of seigneurial extraction, but in either case the countryside was boiling with discontent over these trends as well as over oppressive royal taxes and food shortages. Peasants were poised between great hopes for the future raised by the calling of the Estates-General and extreme anxiety—fear of losing land, fear of hunger (especially after the catastrophic harvest of 1788), and fear of a vengeful aristocracy.

In July peasants in several regions sacked the castles of nobles and burned the documents that recorded their feudal obligations. This peasant insurgency eventually merged into the movement known as the Great Fear. Rumours abounded that these vagrants were actually brigands in the pay of nobles, who were marching on villages to destroy the new harvest and coerce the peasants into submission. The fear was baseless, but hundreds of false alarms and panics stirred up hatred and suspicion of nobles, led peasants to arm themselves as best they could, and set off widespread attacks on châteaus and feudal documents. The peasant revolt suggested that the unity of the Third Estate against "aristocrats" extended from Paris to villages across the country. The Third Estate truly seemed invincible.




In case after historical case, it is only with the support of some Middle class person, Agency, Institution or "Social Machine" which provides the means by which a Peasant or Proletariat revolt ever makes a sustained headway. In English history we make note of some Lord or Noble heading the charge against some perceived oppressor. It matters not if a CAUSE of some lower class is JUST; and designated as an Equal Right, or a Divine Right, or an Inalienable Right or some other loftedly designated Right. If a lower class is not supported by some variable of a Middle Class social mechanism, the CAUSE is typically doomed to fail as a sustained gain. If a CAUSE is gained, it very often is met later on by some treachery such as being undermined by a future law, some future leadership, some future circumstance created by one or more who want to provide some supposed logic that the gain needs to repelled, reversed or otherwise marginalized, diminished, diluted, dismissed, detoured and thus designated as an irrelevancy, whereby some other form of oppression, some other formula of societal means of making the majority an indentured servant... whereby a few can take advantage of the many by some twisted philosophy that all others are to defer to; and the old adage of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is sustained... even though basic needs, basic sustenances, basic rights are achieved. There is no practice of an equal distribution of resources. However, the idea that all the people should be entitled to an equal distribution, and that no one is to be taken advantage of by way of particularized ownership values, is an antiquated philosophical perspective that needs to be tossed out into the rubbish heap, because it is based on the idea that the Earth will support humanity and human progress indefinitely, or at least for a longer period of time than present day humans need to be bothered with in examining thereof, much less refuting and making efforts to remove themselves from conditions which force humans to choose between one ridiculous business, political, and religious philosophy over another. Humanity must sever the umbilical cord from "Mother Earth" and its cyclical influences for creating conditions whereby human history repeats itself from one nonsense to another nonsense.

Let us take for example the following lists of rights declarations, noting who (in as much as where, when and why) pursued them, since if they are not directly mentioned, there often is to be uncovered an imposition by some "Middle class" Lord or Nobleman (when "middle class" means between the ruler and the common people):

  • Magna Carta (England 1215)- the charter of English liberties granted by King John under threat of civil war and reissued with alterations in 1216, 1217, and 1225. ("Magna Carta." Encyclopædia Britannica.)
    • The charter meant less to contemporaries than it has to subsequent generations. The solemn circumstances of its first granting have given to Magna Carta of 1215 a unique place in popular imagination; quite early in its history it became a symbol and a battle cry against oppression, each successive generation reading into it a protection of its own threatened liberties. In England the Petition of Right (1628) and the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) looked directly back to clause 39 of the charter of 1215, which stated that "no free man shall be...imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed]...except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." In the United States both the national and the state constitutions show ideas and even phrases directly traceable to Magna Carta. Earlier kings of England—Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II—had issued charters, making promises or concessions to their barons. But these were granted by, not exacted from, the king and were very generally phrased...
  • Bill of Rights (England 1689)- An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown: (The main purpose of the act was unequivocally to declare illegal various practices of James II.) ["Rights, Bill of." Encyclopædia Britannica. ]
  • Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (France 1780's)- The basic principle of the Declaration was that: "all men are born and remain free and equal in rights". ["Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." Encyclopædia Britannica.] The ideas for the Bill of Rights were those reflecting contemplations of the political thinker John Locke. They quickly became popular in England. [Bill of Rights 1689]



Date of Origination: Saturday, January 18th, 2020... 4:32 AM
Initial Posting: Saturday, February 1st, 2020... 1:30 PM



Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com