Tensegrity in social movements

If Hegel’s Dialectics can be applied to social structures and movements, as has been promoted by Karl Marx, so must the laws of tensegrity, of tensional integrity.

Let us look at the pair of proclaimed opposites that haunt the history of mankind for the last 200 years, Socialism and Capitalism!

Since we live in times of rampant double-speak, we need to make minimally clear what we refer to. Socialism is the first phase of communism, according to Marx a transient phase, a strategy rather than a permanent system in its own rights. Communism is said to be in direct opposition to Capitalism and shall reign in a post-capitalist stage of society. To me, this looks like an out-right linear evolution. Or, if you like, a non-linear revolution. Where is Hegel’s Dialectics coming into play?, if I may ask politely.

Capitalism on the other side, as defined by Adam Smith, is the ‘invisible hand’ creating competition based on supply and demand. Wait a minute: isn’t that a dialectic system right there?

Further, looking at the roots of these ideas, wasn’t communism first proposed by Plato? And, as such, isn’t it a form of social coexistence and survival? Isn’t it something, capitalism doesn’t include at all? Aren’t we comparing apples with oranges here?

Hmm, looks like our first attempt to find a pair of opposites in today’s political struggle failed utterly. There no dialectical process within or around the opposition of socialism and capitalism. Whoever thinks otherwise has clearly not understood what Hegel tried to convey. Ironically, and much to our surprise, we found the dialectical principle where we least expected it: in the definition of capitalism.

Applying the concept of tensegrity to the supply and demand force vectors, we see indeed a pair of complementary opposites and we can therefore confidently expect such a (truly!) capitalist system to self-optimize. I said ‘truly’, yes, because the reality of the ‘marketplace’ is another one: the market as a system has been corrupted to favor some competitors to the detriment of others. The properties of tensegrity have been thus grossly violated. In other words, what we have today is not, I repeat:is not, capitalism as such. It appears we are not just comparing apples with oranges, we care comparing apples with rotten oranges.

But where in the world is the ‘true’ dichotomy? We find the attribute of ‘conservatism‘ as a property of capitalism and ‘progressivism‘ as a self-defining element of socialism. If capitalism is a dynamic interplay, dialectical process, as it had been defined by Adam Smith, what would constitute conservatism? If Darwin would have lived 100 years earlier, I speculate that Adam Smith may have pointed to the observation that, like in nature, competition leads to evolution. We find that the proponents of socialism, besides falsely claiming it being a dialectical process, have also usurped the concept of progress as if any social reform would automatically result in progress.

We could add to this list confusions and false attributions, accusations, and odd dichotomies, but let’s cut to the chase!

Down at the bottom of all this we find the opposites of group and individual and we can easily postulate these being complementary opposites. Both need each other in human society, they exist in synergy. Their contrast needs to be resolved, their cooperation must be sought.

Interestingly, looking at history, voluntary communism (like in Kibbuz or commune), WORKS! And capitalism when strictly safe-guarded against abuse, WORKS!

In contrast, corrupted capitalists and fake elites create misery for the people. Applied communism is the doom of any nation. A global world order could not ever be anything else than communism and it would ultimately destroy itself and everything else with it.

Yet, communists&socialists project the individual as being the bad boy and harness the power of groups to band together against the perceived enemy, the figment of ‘the capitalist’ who would be defenseless if he wouldn’t have a certain control of physical and financial resources. As an individualist, a capitalist has a hard time forming unions. Even if he does so, those unions become hidden conspiracies and are liable to be discovered at any time.

Individualism is divergent, group-think is convergent. In terms of tensegrity we can immediately identify who is ‘pushing’ and who is ‘pulling’. We also know who has the laws of physics on their side (the convergent party, hint hint), and who has not.

As a last clue, and nearly a proof-of-concept, let us consider that the right side of man is interpreted as the male side and is ‘pushing’ and the left hand is doing its counterpart. Hence, right and left find their mirror in the energy configuration of the human body.

Any rational argument of the right side is therefore immediately extinguished by emotional responses from the left side which are accepted to be irrational, and this is by design. The survival of the group always takes precedence over the individual who, when needed, is expected to self-sacrifice for the future of the species.

So, next time you try to argument with a ‘leftist’, bear in mind that you can never win a rational discussion. That both you and your contrahent may be deluded to who your true opponents actually may be. It may console you (or not!) to annotate that a ‘leftist’ with any trace of individualism, such as an artist or intellectual, will be the amongst the first to be purged violently after a take-over by a communist system, the revolution devours its own children.

There can be no excuse for the betrayal of society by individuals. Yet, the group-mind of socialism, unable to perceive anything other than other groups, bungles the individual individual into an artificial groups of individuals, the ‘capitalists’, the ‘right wing’, the ‘conservatives’. This polarizes the field further instead of warranting a swift punishment of the culprit at hand, the escalation of which we can witness in today’s world, entrenched sides, unable to communicate.

Such polarization has unexpected consequences: at their extreme implementation, both systems, a forced communism, and a corrupted capitalism alike, converge to a capitalism of either states or of that of monopoles. There would be no difference anymore; the devolution into a central and totalitarian system would be the outcome for both.

The ghost of communism stalks the world and finds entrance where you least expect it. It has an enticing message. It seduces the sharpest of minds. It sounds to good to be true and it is. Alas!, any group without the force of individuals is doomed.

Leave a Reply