- Preface page 2b -
The Next Stage of Development
Visitors as of 8 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 |
ANC Prologue Page 2b |
ANC Prologue Page 3b |
| Communism and Societal Collapse |
| ANC Epilogue Page 1 |
ANC Epilogue Page 2 |
ANC Epilogue Page 3 |
In an attempted analysis of Communism, I find myself having to back-pedal in collecting both data and altering the initial inclinations that were, admittedly ad hoc because I have not encountered anyone making a similar attempt using a comparative study of "threes" as a focal point of inclusiveness. Whereas I started with Marx and began collecting historical references as to how he may have been influenced to come up with his idea, the fact that we can see fundamental forms of Communism (defined as communalism and Commonism) in the social insects, begs the question of whether that which we describe as "Communism" in the Marxist/Engelist sense is but a mere later born offshoot. Indeed, if we use basic criteria we might well be able to describe Communism in molecular and atomic behavior; thus presenting us with the option of considering that the Marxist/Engelist brand is a mutant form because so very many of its offspring have been produced advocating enforcement of ideals which create so much destruction and loss of life. The analogy of bad apples falling from a bad tree come to mind, or that apples do not fall far from the trunk and are inclined to land closer to the roots.
Many people have tried to graft their own types of desired fruit to the Marxist tree, but the limbs so very often grown into undesirable profiles that eventually have to be excised or tended to by those who revolve around it as if they were a cult worshiping some World-tree like the Yggdrasil of ancient Norse lore. However, both Communists and Socialists mean well for humanity. We should not lose sight of this despite the many horrific deeds done by those claiming to espouse a Communism they believe will ultimately prove to be a utopia.
However, the idea of an eventual Utopia for humanity on Earth is particularly naive when takes stock of the incremental planetary deteriorations which bark and bite with a frothing mouth at the heels of all living things; to the extent that planetary-influenced geological processes have caused many species to go extinct. And yes, asteroid bombardments are part of this since different parts of the globe would have been hit if the Earth was spinning in a different direction than the increasingly rate of slowing down. This is not to say that those very large impacts would not have done global damage any way, but place and position of a bombardment can have alternative outcomes for living things.
Communism may well be a survival mechanism that has very deep and ancient roots, despite the variations adopted by humanity which have proved to be so very monstrous on several different occasions. However, Marxist brand of Communism as well as its offspring and all other forms of government, rely upon an ideation involving commerce laden with the perspective of valued goods and services (labor). It does not account for an increased limitation of resources and the need for humanity to look beyond the global village defined as Earth. Communism as it is presently being discussed is a fairy tale, just as are Democracy, Socialism, all the religions, and all businesses. For some reason or other there is being practiced the old idea that the only constant is change but that change does not itself likewise change. In other words, it is like Charles Darwin wrestling with the notion of immutability (non-change) amongst species because, one could guess, it was widely thought that life forms remained the same because the general perspective of the population did not have the comprehensibility to notice how life forms changed over expanses of time. The origin of thinking in historical terms did not arise as a conscious social consideration beyond the recording of human-centered preoccupations till the 18th and 19th centuries as described in the following excerpt:
Modern historians aim to reconstruct a record of human activities and to achieve a more profound understanding of them. This conception of their task is quite recent, dating from the development in the late 18th and early 19th centuries of “scientific” history and the simultaneous rise of history as an academic profession. It springs from an outlook that is very new in human experience: the assumption that the study of history is a natural, inevitable human activity. Before the late 18th century, historiography did not stand at the centre of any civilization. History was almost never an important part of regular education, and it never claimed to provide an interpretation of human life as a whole. This larger ambition was more appropriate to religion, philosophy, and perhaps poetry and other imaginative literature.
The article continues with the mention of oral histories being used prior to written histories and one might add that cave paintings are a type of recording an earlier event. It also speaks of texts such as the Torah and Bible as being types of historical records though historical records concerning rulers dates from earlier periods in China, Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, the history of overall life, biology, the origin of the Universe, the origin of religion, etc., appears not to have occurred in any appreciable way till writing had been established and retained on materials that could be stored and read by future generations. Yet, like oral history which is prone to alterations with each re-telling, re-writing of documents sometimes exhibits a qualitative similarity in that one scribe or translator adopts their own individualized "poetic license" (so-to-speak) and either embellishes, excludes or otherwise alters content as they interpret it.
In the present discussion, Communism has played a part in history but most "Historians" of Communism appear to use the Marx/Engels doctrine as the originating moment. They do not necessarily conceive of Communism having an earlier origin and that the Marx/Engels perspective nor do they contemplate it as being merely a style of analysis they have adopted, and thus have unwittingly surrendered themselves to a status quo type of thinking about Communism. While many Communists do not describe themselves as historians, they in fact do research on Communism to uncover its (Marxist) beginning and follow-up offshoots (such as Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc...). Trying to speak to them is like trying to talk a horse with blinders on which sees a carrot dangling in front ("just up ahead") called Utopia; which can be reached along a given three-step cobblestone path: (Democracy → Socialism → Communism) that frequently contains detours, lost bridges, fallen trees, wild pig paths, etc..
Communists (and others) do not generally think of Communism as an (alternative) survival mechanism presenting itself when certain environmentally-influenced social conditions arise. They expect Communism to gain a greater foothold in the consciousness of humanity when "conditions are right" but do not consider that those conditions may be short-lived or the product of a debilitated environment caused by incremental deteriorations. While they allow themselves to be patiently flexible awaiting for the right conditions to present themselves to make a Communism more viable, they become inflexible to the realization that Communism itself must be flexible and not as rigid as Marxist oriented activists insist upon surveying and interpreting social conditions. This approach is similar to the expression "my way or the highway," sometimes used by one or more parents who rule a family like a dictator or whip-slinging overseer.
Those who refuse to look at Communism from a larger perspective involving multiple subjects effect the mentality of someone set in their ways, though in other instances they may well utilize multiple approaches to a given task. Some worship some brand of Marxist doctrine to the point they can recite it verbatim, like many door-to-door volunteers seeking new members for their religion, little knowing that it is being effected as a business model to get a larger pool of untaxed donations. Just imagine the impact of Communism if all Communists could agree upon a single doctrine and this then brought in a membership of millions paying a contributory fee called a 'due' (Like union dues), tax, tithing, or price tag. And yet, would humanity be appreciably better off and come to devise a plan for itself beyond the confines of Earth, the planetary system and the galaxy, where conditions may well present themselves making the usage of a Communism more of burden than efficiency, and where in fact humanity's genetics may be appreciably altered to the point a new type of species is originated and no longer sees the value for any Earth generated... human contrived formula of business, government, or religion?
When we recognize that even the 2000 years game plan of the Roman Empire came to an end, all formulas of business, government and religion should be looked upon as temporary workers assisting humanity under different conditions. All of them are alternative game plans to assist in survival for given conditions. And all of them are subject to change and/or extinction.
Because different civilizations have existed with different formulas of government, some more brutal than others, this speaks to the tolerance as well as ignorance humanity serves to accept and practice. However, this does not mean a government's position is the greater right, despite some religions calling its leaders having an infallibility, and some government leaders portraying themselves as having a divine right. Indeed, because such nonsense time and again takes form and fashion according to the era in which one happens to find themselves in, this points to a systemic problem in how people are directed towards positions of leadership in that they very often embrace a mentality harboring that which is customarily against a collective will, though there never is a consensus taken by which a supposed singular will can be tabulated. Some come to think that there is a majority who think in a given way, but they is never actual any publicly viewed head count ever taken. Those that do exercise some marginal practice of democracy frequently do so under conditions in which people feel obligated to go along with a few dominant others, though if given the chance to think about alternatives (which are seldom supplied or supplied with inaccuracies), they might well choose something other than the status quo... unless they fear in doing so they might thereafter be subjected to some sort of ostracism with or without an attached violence.
Marx participated in the history of those thinking about historical events within a given context and can be forgiven for not including a larger subset of considerations because such information was lacking in his time such as the triple code of DNA, and multiple other developmental scenarios involving different subjects. Yet, despite the growth in knowledge, we have far too many who take up an interest in the Marxist brand of Communism and look only upon information which will best support their brand of interpretation. Their historical review is centered on reviewing the history of Marx within a very small parameter of interest in other disciplines. While they will attempt to place the Marxist doctrine within the context of their own society and perhaps even the global situation of humanity, they do so with the language and orientation expressed by Marx, and do not adopt their own variation without advancing their own constraints, as if in opening their views up to alternative subject matter they will find themselves confronted by considerations which make their strict view untenable and thus indefensible. Unlike them, I relish this when studying the Threes phenomena because it forces me to enlarge my appreciation of multiple subjects which should be included. Likewise for any proposed New Communist doctrine.
If it can be established that it is a viable formula that will better assist humanity in its interest in self-preservation, we should know to what extent Communism is of value under what conditions and where it is flexible enough to grow with humanity as it evolves under conditions of incremental deterioration. Or is Communism a specific tool for a specific function, irrespective of our conscious understanding of "functional fixedness," where a hammer is seen and used only as a hammer and not alternatively like a door stop, counter-weight, nut cracker, etc.? Is the future time in which Communism is supposed to arise as the sovereign form of Socio-politico-economic model a time in which the environment will reach but not pass through, whereby a form of government that is static will be best? In other words, will the Communism of this supposed future time be in the form of a greater flexibility to deal with an enlarged population with reduced resources under more severe environmental conditions?
The phrase "functional fixedness" falls under a Britannica category of Obstacles to effective thinking, and needs to viewed in the context of an analysis of Communism as if it were speaking solely about Communism (though all forms of government could be included) since we can see varying models of mental blocks as dedicated obstacles not being recognized as recurring cognitive patterns effecting what can be referred to as someone stuck in the mud spinning their wheels thus requiring a New Model of Communism stemming from a more basic interpretation of life's processes under changing condtions that social conditions must cope with and require a flexible governing model and not one fixiated on a past doctrine with an inability of its advocates to learn something new. Since Communism is being offered as a solution, we need to ascertain whether the formula is based on updated knowledge involving many more subject area variables than the restricted information Marx and Engels used to formulate their equation.
Obstacles to effective thinking
A better understanding of the processes of thought and problem solving can be gained by identifying factors that tend to prevent effective thinking. Some of the more common obstacles, or blocks, are mental set, functional fixedness, stereotypes, and negative transfer.
- A mental set, or “entrenchment,” is a frame of mind involving a model that represents a problem, a problem context, or a procedure for problem solving. When problem solvers have an entrenched mental set, they fixate on a strategy that normally works well but does not provide an effective solution to the particular problem at hand. A person can become so used to doing things in a certain way that, when the approach stops working, it is difficult for him to switch to a more effective way of doing things.
- Functional fixedness is the inability to realize that something known to have a particular use may also be used to perform other functions. When one is faced with a new problem, functional fixedness blocks one's ability to use old tools in novel ways. Overcoming functional fixedness first allowed people to use reshaped coat hangers to get into locked cars, and it is what first allowed thieves to pick simple spring door locks with credit cards.
- Another block involves stereotypes. The most common kinds of stereotypes are rationally unsupported generalizations about the putative characteristics of all, or nearly all, members of a given social group. Most people learn many stereotypes during childhood. Once they become accustomed to stereotypical thinking, they may not be able to see individuals or situations for what they are.
- Negative transfer occurs when the process of solving an earlier problem makes later problems harder to solve. It is contrasted with positive transfer, which occurs when solving an earlier problem makes it easier to solve a later problem. Learning a foreign language, for example, can either hinder or help the subsequent learning of another language.
Expert thinking and novice thinking
Research by the American psychologists Herbert A. Simon, Robert Glaser, and Micheline Chi, among others, has shown that experts and novices think and solve problems in somewhat different ways. These differences explain why experts are more effective than novices in a variety of problem-solving endeavours.
As compared with novices, experts tend to have larger and richer schemata (organized representations of things or events that guide a person's thoughts and actions), and they possess far greater knowledge in specific domains. The schemata of experts are also highly interconnected, meaning that retrieving one piece of information easily leads to the retrieval of another piece. Experts devote proportionately more time to determining how to represent a problem, but they spend proportionately less time in executing solutions. In other words, experts tend to allocate more of their time to the early or preparatory stages of problem solving, whereas novices tend to spend relatively more of their time in the later stages. The thought processes of experts also reveal more complex and sophisticated representations of problems. In terms of heuristics, experts are more likely to use a working-forward strategy, whereas novices are more likely to use a working-backward strategy. In addition, experts tend to monitor their problem solving more carefully than do novices, and they are also more successful in reaching appropriate solutions.
W. Edgar Vinacke: Professor of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1963–84. Author of The Psychology of Thinking.
"thought." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Is Communism best suited for a time when there are 12 to 15 billion people on Earth? When there are 10, 000 earthquakes per day? When not only the oceans have claimed much land but so have deserts and increasing diseases that do not kill people but make them dependent on a social system with reduced resources? Will this Communism of the future use its history of violence and destruction to effect mass forms of genocide in order to feed a population that has outstripped the planet's ability to provide for it, or will this be the excuse by which a Communism is to be effected... as a means to stop the growth of a population and to disperse dwindling resources in a more equitable manner, yet refuse to implement a desperately needed space program to get humanity to new, more fertile grounds?
When the adoption of any government is based upon economics but those economics are becoming increasing constrained by a dwindling resource base, will Communism be viable only because it is an act of desperation? Instead of desperate situations revolving around poor wages, poor working conditions, a lousy redistribution of goods (such as taxes), high rents, unjust laws, etc., against which Communism as been asserted, is Communism a last ditch effort to be adopted years in the future because multiple more conditions of desperation will be on humanity? Is Communism an 11th hour hope, a hail Mary football toss, or the last match to light a fire when situations have reached a stage of conscious intolerability?
Communism is not and can never be the goal for assisting humanity out of one or another desperate or difficult situation. It can be described as a stepping stone, a road sign, a temporary way-station en route to better conditions, but those conditions must dictate the adopted enterprise of overall socialization, though they typically are subjected to strong-arm tactics enforced by some law, be it promoted by business, government and/or religion. And nor can those situations be artificialized by those whose main motivation is to establish Communism or any form of business, government or religion as THE goal. Like many who instigate wars for a variety of business, government (military, political vendetta, etc.) and religious reasons, advocates of Communism can not allow it to be used (metaphorically) as a prostitute, whore, or incestuous/adulterating pornographic entertainment. Nor should it be used as an opium den like so many religions are, though there are very many different socialized practices of intoxication being allowed under current so-called democracy.
For me, the proposed "Utopia" advocated by some Communists is just as silly as the supposed Heaven, Bliss, Nirvana, and Enlightenment being promoted by religion and some philosophies. All of which strike me as the "All lived happily Ever-after" theme seen in fairy tales. All of them are some supposed Holy grail, golden fleece, pot-of-gold, treasure, etc., to be found... eventually, if one follows a certain path in a certain way, and insult injury or set backs are to be defined in terms of personal digressions from the path and some established "Way". All of them represent different types of survival mechanisms of which Communism is little more than this. While it may be of value for a given time, place and period of usage, none of them are to be interpreted as representing an immutable code as that described by the triplet code in DNA which seems to be exempt from having to evolve. If it does not evolve nor can it evolve, humanity is in deeper trouble that one might initially suppose. Such an immutability means there can be no adaptation to other environments without the usage of such a code that may well have to have a particular environmental setting for it to be sustained... and metaphorically speaking, can be described as a "Utopic Code". Yet, as a 'Utopic code' having been achieved and sustained, we see a variety of life forms which are both good and bad in relation to human existence, as well as humans themselves being both good and bad to itself.
Is the triple code of DNA a "Utopic code" bar-none? Is it immutable because it represents a final achievement and can therefore represent any and all forms of suppose excellence awaiting humanity along a proscribed trail of indulgence in a given business, government, religion or philosophy? And what do we thus make of such an achievement? Is the many forms of life that we see to be that which comes after the Utopia is achieved? Does Heaven hold a similar fate? What about the supposed Bliss, Enlightenment and Nirvana? Is there aftermath to be followed similar to that which we describe as life and thus represents a birth and rebirth of seeking yet another Utopia in each life time only to be confronted with yet another type of existence with its own variety of Utopia and labeling thereof?
If you are one to say first let us have a Communism and then we will cross the philosophical bridge when we come to it, well.... surprise, we have reached the philosophical bridge without the need of a practiced global Communism. Different survival mechanisms find themselves meeting at the same crossroads confronted by the same question of where do we go from here? We must leave this planet, this solar system and eventually the galaxy. Like an insect in a cycle of metamorphosis, humanity's many travails leads them to a point in time where the metamorphosis no longer suffices to portray that which lays beyond all ideologies constructed as survival strategies on an incrementally deteriorating planet.
If Communism is the supposed ultimate goal of humanity, you might as well kill humanity off. Likewise if the ultimate goal is Heaven, Bliss, Utopia, Enlightenment, or Nirvana. All of them are little more than expressed realizations of an intellectually projected memory of the evolutionary metamorphosis that human physiology has developed through, both for the species (phylogenetically) and individually (ontogenetically). A caterpillar might well think of themselves as having reached a heavenly paradise with angels with wings once they have evolved into a butterfly, or a plant whose seeds are lofted far beyond by prevailing winds to begin a new life in more fertile soil. Communism does not fill me with much hope for a better humanity if it is seen as the foremost goal to be achieved. Therefore, I prefer to see it as a mere stepping stone that we need not step on if this is best for humanity when overall conditions are being assessed. Just because a particular idea exists as an option, does not mean it is automatically viable. However, let us consider it with further discussion.
Date of Origination: Thursday, 5th March 2019... 4:00 AM
Initial Posting: Thursday, 5th March 2019... 7:51 AM
Updated Posting: Friday, 6th March 2019... 10:54 AM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com