• Nelson Guedes

The Complex Evolution of Political Groups

All groups of people in society are connected by social, economic, political and financial interactions that flow between members of the groups. Interactions can flow between members within groups and between members of different groups, forming internal and external networks.

Political groups are made up of social and economic groups, including various organizations associated with them. They are typically referred to as “interest groups” in political science. There are many variations of philosophy and power distribution within political groups. These variations are not always clear for someone who is not a member of the groups and don’t have access to their information. Despite variations, members tend to associate with others who have the closest view to them, creating an echo chamber effect where every member of the group reinforces the views of all other members creating a limited internal perspective.

Members also form a limited perspective of other groups based on their interactions with specific members of the other groups, despite the fact that individual members don’t fully represent the groups they belong to. This leads to incomplete perspectives and the association of those incomplete limited perspectives with the other groups as a whole.

The lack of information of other groups, coupled with the echo chamber effect, ultimately leads to an oversimplification of a political group by another, leading to a polarization of perspectives, a breakdown of communication, increase in misunderstandings, decrease in trust and increase in conflict.

These problems can be fixed by everyone within every political group becoming members of all political groups over time, creating a highly evolved political group. That leads to an increase in complexity in the short-term, as many new social and economic connections are made between opposing groups, followed by a slight decrease in complexity in the long-run as the different configurations of political groups increase their level of syntony and connections are improved.

In addition to accidental misunderstandings between two groups, there is also a form of misunderstanding between two groups that can be intentionally created by a third political group that manipulates the perspectives of the other two groups. They do this by infiltrating groups, spreading misinformation within each group and sparking conflicts between groups. These manipulative political groups are always very powerful, having access to a lot of social and economic power that can be used to influence less powerful groups. They also tend to be smaller due to the high density of social and economic power that they possess. These small powerful groups also decrease the social and economic power that the larger groups have over time, decreasing their level of syntony and leading to greater levels of instability.

The Polarizing Effect of Political Parties and Systems

Political groups tend to be organized in a one-dimensional spectrum of “left” and “right” philosophies, based on a two-party or a three-party system with an additional “center” party. Each side is usually considered itself a large group, forming a dichotomy. This one-dimensional organization fails to account for differences in social and economic combinations within different political groups leading to great levels of oversimplification, confusion, conflict and misunderstanding between groups. The presence of a sufficiently influential center group tends to alleviate some of those negative effects, resulting in less instability.

As division within the groups intensify, some members tend to become more extreme in their views, leading to the formation of extremist subgroups. At the same time, other members form alternative groups in an attempt to compete against their opponents, often uncovering historical information that had been lost. Through this evolutionary process, a two-dimensional map of political groups is formed, with mainstream “left” and “right”, in a process of decay, and alternative versions of “left” and “right” becoming more prominent. This two-dimensional map of political groups can capture more of the social-economic nuances and perspectives of different political groups, but they fail to capture all of their complexities. The alternative groups eventually become more powerful than the mainstream and overtake them in an election, becoming the new mainstream.

This evolutionary political process happens slowly, as the typical election cycle tends to last 4 years. Every 4 years, all members of all political groups have a chance to select one member out of all political groups available to represent them. Their selection is, then, very limited and often restricted to the most powerful political groups that represent the elites. The greater the difference of power between groups, the harder it becomes to elect someone who is truly representative of the groups. A more advanced political system would have much shorter cycles and a much wider array of choices. Such a system would increase the feedback loops between citizens and their representatives and with variations of political philosophy that are far more refined than a simple two-party system. The most advanced system would be a direct democracy where each member represents their own views. Members would then vote for policies instead of representatives. Feedback loops would be instantaneous, as members could vote in real time and quickly gain feedback of their policies. Such a system, however, requires more collaboration and stability between members before it can be fully implement, so a hybrid system with representatives to facilitate the process, could bridge the gap between the current political system and the advanced one.

The Evolved Political Group

In order for political groups to be clearly defined, we must first measure them on every scale of social, economic, political and financial interaction. That requires the organization of groups in multiple scales. At least 6 scales are required: individual, family, community, city, region and planet. Each scale is composed of a network of groups of the smaller scale. For instance, cities are composed of a collection of neighborhoods and neighborhoods are composed of a collection of families. From this detailed level of organization and measurement of variations we can more clearly define the densities of power within groups and how power flows within groups of different sizes and levels of complexity.

We have previously discussed how the political spectrum polarizes political groups into “left” and “right” camps. The political spectrum requires either the victory of one side of the spectrum over another or a compromise that doesn’t satisfy neither side of the political conflict. For that reason, centrism is not an ideal solution. At its best, it leads to a momentary slowdown of conflict. We must, instead, create an evolved political group that resolves the conflicts between all existing political groups.

The evolved political group needs to incorporate the core values and ideals of both the right and the left, reconciling them within one view. It needs to reject the idea that politics is a zero-sum game with winners and losers. It may not satisfy the most extreme and unhealthy views of the spectrum, but it is sufficient to satisfy the vast majority, eventually dissipating the extremes.

The evolved political group would be very balanced, representative of both sides of the current one-dimensional political spectrum. Both sides are required for society to function properly. It would not be centrist in the sense of compromise, it would be centrist in the sense of consensus. As such, it would not fall anywhere within the established political spectrum, it would fall beyond it, as part of a complex multidimensional spectrum.

This evolved political group needs to be rooted in social, economic, political and financial freedom. This is recognized as the individualist “right”. Before there can be any agreement in society as a whole, the freedom of the individual must be preserved. This means that all social and economic decisions are based on the individual, with the individual being the catalyst for all decisions that affect them. Each individual is a member of many different groups in different scales. From this individualist root, we connect other individuals who are connected to each individual within different scales of groups. Individuals can then influence all the decisions that affect them, by balancing their freedom with the freedom of others in the groups they belong to. Each group within this ideal group would then possess enough social, economic, political and financial power to perform all its necessary functions, thus allowing everyone to retain their right of self-determination. This leads to most decisions being made locally, within a city, with some being done regionally and nearly none being done globally.

The ultimate goal of this group is to attain the social, economic, political and financial cohesiveness of the collectivist left from the foundation of the social, economic, political and financial freedom of the individualist right, balancing the freedom of the individual and the cohesiveness of the groups they are a member of. In this manner, we can have group cohesiveness while preserving individual freedoms.

8 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

I've been seriously considering running for city council, but I've been reluctant for a few reasons. First of all, I'm not very fond of politics. I'm interested in political issues and I think it is i