- Preface page 3b -
The Next Stage of Development
~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
Visitors as of 11th 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 |
The Motivations of those seeking to implement a Communism need to be addressed. From the following Britannica excerpt on motivation two types are described:
Motives are often categorized into primary, or basic, motives, which are unlearned and common to both animals and humans; and secondary, or learned, motives, which can differ from animal to animal and person to person.
- Primary motives are thought to include hunger, thirst, sex, avoidance of pain, and perhaps aggression and fear.
- Secondary motives typically studied in humans include achievement, power motivation, and numerous other specialized motives.
Herbert L. Petri: Professor of Psychology, Towson State University, Maryland. Author of Motivation: Theory, Research, and Applications.
"motivation." Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013
Because the article was written by a psychologist and psychology is known for its inclination to use Persistent Dichotomies in their world view similar to those practicing a yin/yang perspective, let us be conscious of this fact to note that the world does not revolve around a two-patterned orientation. In fact, to the primary and secondary categories of motivation we can add a tertiary, though some readers may well be inclined to devise a larger array based on their own system of organization using different criteria utilizing different labels such as motivations based on an Id- Ego- Superego profile. Or one might suggest a profile of Unconscious- Consciousness- Super-consciousness. Then again we might use a profile involving reflex- instinct- volition; with degrees of intent defined in terms of experience, education, and opportunity.
The Britannica article goes on to describe the study of motivation from the three perspectives of Physiological, Psychological, and Philosophical approaches, as if more basic themes of reference are to be introduced with a pattern-of-two (primary/secondary types of motivation) which are to be analyzed by a following three-patterned perspective as just noted. In any case, the cognitive array of an underlying enumeratable thought process is not a typical item that is being discussed in Psychology courses. Far too many people generally conclude that by using numbers to identify quantity of thought processes and items thereof, is little more than numerology, even though it is a standard behavior being used the world over. In other words, we all used identifiable enumeration in our thought processing and organization thereof, whether or not we are aware of it. Hence, the exclusion of a "Threesological" grasp of cognitive behavior is being deliberately (and other-wise) overlooked. What motivates the main body of Psychology teaching programs to do this is similar to the many types of motivations taken place amongst Communists.
When speaking to the motivation of Communists, we necessarily invite the attribution of the motivations of all people, though some would constrain the topic to that of politics. Niccolò Machiavelli comes to mine since his reflections appear to have been embraced by many Communists and those seeking to replace one government for another by using methods of necessity, as they see it in a given context.
Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 - June 21, (was an) Italian Renaissance political philosopher and statesman, secretary of the Florentine republic; whose most famous work, The Prince (Il Principe), brought him a reputation as an atheist and an immoral cynic.
In a letter to a friend in 1498, Machiavelli writes of listening to the sermons of Girolamo Savonarola (1452–98), a Dominican friar who moved to Florence in 1482 and in the 1490s attracted a party of popular supporters with his thinly veiled accusations against the government, the clergy, and the pope. Although Savonarola, who effectively ruled Florence for several years after 1494, was featured in The Prince (1513) as an example of an "unarmed prophet" who must fail, Machiavelli was impressed with his learning and rhetorical skill. On May 24, 1498, Savonarola was hanged as a heretic and his body burned in the public square. Several days later, emerging from obscurity at the age of 29, Machiavelli became head of the second chancery (cancelleria), a post that placed him in charge of the republic's foreign affairs in subject territories. How so young a man could be entrusted with so high an office remains a mystery, particularly because Machiavelli apparently never served an apprenticeship in the chancery. He held the post until 1512, having gained the confidence of Piero Soderini (1452–1522), the gonfalonier (chief magistrate) for life in Florence from 1502.
In office Machiavelli wrote a number of short political discourses and poems (the Decennali) on Florentine history. It was while he was out of office and in exile, however, that the "Florentine Secretary," as Machiavelli came to be called, wrote the works of political philosophy for which he is remembered. In his most noted letter (December 10, 1513), he described one of his days—in the morning walking in the woods, in the afternoon drinking and gambling with friends at the inn, and in the evening reading and reflecting in his study, where, he says, "I feed on the food that alone is mine and that I was born for." In the same letter, Machiavelli remarks that he has just composed a little work on princes—a "whimsy"—and thus lightly introduces arguably the most famous book on politics ever written, the work that was to give the name Machiavellian to the teaching of worldly success through scheming deceit.
About the same time that Machiavelli wrote The Prince (1513), he was also writing a very different book, Discourses on Livy (or, more precisely, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy [Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio]). Both books were first published only after Machiavelli's death, the Discourses on Livy in 1531 and The Prince in 1532. They are distinguished from his other works by the fact that in the dedicatory letter to each he says that it contains everything he knows. The dedication of the Discourses on Livy presents the work to two of Machiavelli's friends, who he says are not princes but deserve to be, and criticizes the sort of begging letter he appears to have written in dedicating The Prince. The two works differ also in substance and manner. Whereas The Prince is mostly concerned with princes—particularly new princes—and is short, easy to read, and, according to many, dangerously wicked, the Discourses on Livy is a "reasoning" that is long, difficult, and full of advice on how to preserve republics. Every thoughtful treatment of Machiavelli has had to come to terms with the differences between his two most important works.
The first and most persistent view of Machiavelli is that of a teacher of evil. The German-born American philosopher Leo Strauss (1899–1973) begins his interpretation from this point. The Prince is in the tradition of the "Mirror for Princes"—i.e., books of advice that enabled princes to see themselves as though reflected in a mirror—which began with the Cyropaedia by the Greek historian Xenophon (431–350 BC) and continued into the Middle Ages. Prior to Machiavelli, works in this genre advised princes to adopt the best prince as their model, but Machiavelli's version recommends that a prince go to the "effectual truth" of things and forgo the standard of "what should be done" lest he bring about his ruin. To maintain himself a prince must learn how not to be good and use or not use this knowledge "according to necessity." An observer would see such a prince as guided by necessity, and from this standpoint Machiavelli can be interpreted as the founder of modern political science, a discipline based on the actual state of the world as opposed to how the world might be in utopias such as the Republic of Plato (428/27–348/47 BC) or the City of God of Saint Augustine (354–430). This second, amoral interpretation can be found in works by the German historian Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) and the German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945). The amoral interpretation fastens on Machiavelli's frequent resort to "necessity" in order to excuse actions that might otherwise be condemned as immoral. But Machiavelli also advises the use of prudence in particular circumstances, and, though he sometimes offers rules or remedies for princes to adopt, he does not seek to establish exact or universal laws of politics in the manner of modern political science.
Harvey Mansfield: Professor of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Author of Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders: A Study of the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli's Virtue, Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power, and others.
Source: "Machiavelli, Niccolò." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The "What should be done" expression in the foregoing appears quite reminiscent of Lenin's "What is to be done":
In his What Is To Be Done? (1902), Lenin totally rejected the standpoint that the proletariat was being driven spontaneously to revolutionary Socialism by capitalism and that the party's role should be to merely coordinate the struggle of the proletariat's diverse sections on a national and international scale. Capitalism, he contended, predisposed the workers to the acceptance of Socialism but did not spontaneously make them conscious Socialists. The proletariat by its own efforts in the everyday struggle against the capitalist could go so far as to achieve "trade-union consciousness." But the proletariat could not by its own efforts grasp that it would be possible to win complete emancipation only by overthrowing capitalism and building Socialism, unless the party from without infused it with Socialist consciousness.
Albert Resis: Emeritus Professor of History, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb. Author of articles on Russian and Soviet history.
"Lenin, Vladimir Ilich." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Machiavelli's "according to necessity" is the "Modus Operandi" (mode of operation) used by both governments and those wishing to change one government for another because it is backed up by a self-convincing philosophy which is used 'in order to excuse actions that might otherwise be condemned as immoral'. However, such a digression of commentary does not actually discuss the topic of motivation on an individual and collective group level. For example, do those who have adopted a personal struggle to use some facet of Communism as a philosophical basis for righting one or more perceived wrongs occurring in present governments; see themselves establishing a Communism so that they can assume the role of a majority and not a minority who are given positions which wield more power, more prestige and very likely a larger income an overall increased level of resources? Do they honestly believe that the adoption of a Communism will yield a greater level of personal economy for themselves and they will not be used as cannon fodder for a select few who attempt to orchestrate themselves into one another position of leadership?
Are those advocating a Communism or any type of government different than the one they are currently subjected to, actually believe they will somehow personally benefit if another group of leaders are put in charge and then are permitted to dictate what is meant by equality, since the idea of what is meant by equality is most often described in such general terms that there is no contractual agreement nor obligation to produce an equality that may be thought of and expected by those who are supportive of a change in government?
And even if there is an established Constitution there is no guarantee that a Supreme Court will interpret it according to the best needs of the people when they are expected to swear allegiance to the Constitution and not the people, and are otherwise obligated politically to interpret the Constitution in line with the person's political views who gave them their position such as the President in the U.S..
While the motivations for a majority of Communists may well be sincere in wanting to effect a better government, what they individually and collectively mean by "better" may have a wide spectrum since there is no established method by which the individual and collective views are tabulated and used a contract. Instead, we find wishy-washy alliances based on word-of-mouth assertions that are not binding and whose implementation in any respect is left up to the power a particular person may yield who is more interested in carrying out personal vendettas than effecting an actual Communism, similar to the fact that there is no actual Democracy being practiced and there is no one to enforce such a practice because no one actually knows what an "actual" democracy means, though some use the phrase "of- By-For the people" as a generality, without noticing that the word "all" is omitted.
Like the Constitution being held in greater regard than the people, the idea of establishing a Communism at any cost is a similar orientation, as if once a Communism is established some sort of magical effect will take place and subject everyone to some supposed utopia.
In speaking about motivations, one might well say they want to bring about equality, but are unable to qualify what this specifically means. If one says an equal share of everything, how are we to establish what an equal share means when the cataloguing of what resources are available are done by those who have ulterior motives that cause them to lie about how much or how little of a given resource exists in order to manipulate stock market prices or attempt to direct consumer behavior in a given direction? If we claim the quantities tabulated by a given government and yet want to replace the government, why would we be inclined to believe what the government says? Why are Communists motivated to believe some information from a government because it supports the claims being made by Communists, and then reject the information that doesn't support these same claims? Communists are being just as dishonest as those they are trying to replace.
Why in the world would anyone want to effect the establishment of a Communism that wants to erect itself as a belief system akin to a religion, while at the same time claim that religion is an opiate of the masses? This is hypocritical nonsense. There is no reason for anyone to have a greater level of confidence in a Communist than they would a Democrat, Republican, Anarchist, Libertarian, Priest, Rabbi, Police Officer, etc., particularly when Communism has a very bad reputation that it has not yet been able to remove from its image.
It matters not how many agree with Communists that all present forms of government need improvement, and that in order to change the smaller ones there is a need to establish a different government in those countries with the largest economic influence; most people will not "Rise UP" and revolt to assist Revolutionaries. Most people simply indulge whatever government is in place and learn to carve out a personal niche in accord with whatever system prevails. It is an egotistical illusion to think that a massive amount of people will join a Cause once its members begin exhibiting an assertion. Time and time again we witness that most Revolutions are carried out by only a few, and all others simply adjust their life philosophy to some semblance of an accommodation to whatever form and formula takes shape, be it slavery, dictatorship, monarchy, dog-eat-dog, street violence, inequality, unjust laws, etc... Many people would prefer to accept the beating of a State and view themselves as an historically representative Martyr than fight against injustice. Indeed, cowardice takes many forms and is most frequently alternatively labeled as strategy, conservatism, passiveness, conscientious objector, lover-not-fighter, etc...
An example of a person who thought that their rebellious actions would stir a population to join the revolt is found in the history of the Abolitionist John Brown. In a sense, Communists are "Abolitionists" in that they want to abolish many present day facets of current governments, though usually the entire government as well; that is until they take over and realize that there is need for a logical means and mode of transitioning the public who lives by a rule-of-thumb called habituation. It is remarkable so very few have recognized how the mentality of American Abolitionists (and other anti-slavers in history) resemble those of Communists, though Communists are those who fight against many perceived injustices as well. One need only broaden the definition of certain words and exchange the labels for era specificities to see a startlingly mirror-image effect that has not been analyzed as a cognitive pattern with a repeating currency that one can label as a positive product of evolutionary development or a negative example of some disease or malformity, though one need not be limited in their examination by this dichotomy:
John Brown (May 9, 1800 - Dec. 2, 1859, (was a) militant American abolitionist whose raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Va. (now in West Virginia), in 1859 made him a martyr to the antislavery cause and was instrumental in heightening sectional animosities that led to the American Civil War (1861–65).
Moving about restlessly through Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, Brown was barely able to support his large family in any of several vocations at which he tried his hand: tanner, sheep drover, wool merchant, farmer, and land speculator. Though he was white, in 1849 Brown settled with his family in a black community founded at North Elba, N.Y., on land donated by the New York antislavery philanthropist Gerrit Smith. Long a foe of slavery, Brown became obsessed with the idea of taking overt action to help win justice for enslaved black people. In 1855 he followed five of his sons to the Kansas Territory to assist antislavery forces struggling for control there. With a wagon laden with guns and ammunition, Brown settled in Osawatomie and soon became the leader of antislavery guerrillas in the area.
Brooding over the sack of the town of Lawrence by a mob of slavery sympathizers (May 21, 1856), Brown concluded that he had a divine mission to take vengeance. Three days later he led a nighttime retaliatory raid on a proslavery settlement at Pottawatomie Creek, in which five men were dragged out of their cabins and hacked to death. After this raid, the name of "Old Osawatomie Brown" conjured up a fearful image among local slavery apologists.
In the spring of 1858, Brown convened a meeting of blacks and whites in Chatham, Ontario, Canada, at which he announced his intention of establishing in the Maryland and Virginia mountains a stronghold for escaping slaves. He proposed, and the convention adopted, a provisional constitution for the people of the United States. He was elected commander in chief of this paper government while gaining the moral and financial support of Gerrit Smith and several prominent Boston abolitionists.
In the summer of 1859, with an armed band of 16 whites and 5 blacks, Brown set up a headquarters in a rented farmhouse in Maryland, across the Potomac from Harpers Ferry, the site of a federal armoury. On the night of October 16, he quickly took the armoury and rounded up some 60 leading men of the area as hostages. Brown took this desperate action in the hope that escaped slaves would join his rebellion, forming an "army of emancipation" with which to liberate their fellow slaves. Throughout the next day and night he and his men held out against the local militia, but on the following morning he surrendered to a small force of U.S. Marines who had broken in and overpowered him. Brown himself was wounded, and 10 of his followers (including two sons) were killed. He was tried for murder, slave insurrection, and treason against the state and was convicted and hanged.
Although Brown failed to spark a general slave revolt, the high moral tone of his defense helped to immortalize him and to hasten the war that would bring emancipation.
"Brown, John." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013
If a group of people are interested in overthrowing a government to right wrongs that can not be altered by the processes currently in vogue and are being used as varying methods to fatigue, misdirect, confuse, and otherwise deny giving in to any calls for change; then using the label "Communism" as a stated goal will not be accepted by a public with a knowledge of a history of so very many abuses being made by those claiming to be Communists. Unfortunately, Communism has not evolved to being used as a tool and instead is viewed as a singular instrument of creating its own obstructions to the progressive development of humanity (that must move off the planet), because it egotistically views itself as the penultimate goal of human achievement. At present, Communism is analogous to a boulder that once set into place can only be removed by a similar level of violence which was used to effect its placement. Like all present government forms, it does not provide for itself to evolve, but only "tweak" that which it is designed as. Like all governments and religions, it too is appreciably insecure about its self-image. And its placement generally means the adoption of it as on would a boulder placed into a landscape one must maneuver around. It is not yet versatile enough to refashion itself into a sculpture, water well, water fountain, stone path, etc...
A New Communism must develop a strategy to get the people off the planet and stop being so egotistically self-centered about its image and role in some supposed futuristic utopia that, in any respect, will not exist on a planet that is undergoing an incremental deterioration.
Date of Origination: Friday, 6th March 2020... 4:14 AMInitial Posting: Friday, 6th March 2020... 10:55 AM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com