Balance Presupposes a Third Force

The 20th century saw a long stalemate. This is because there were only two political forces vying for supremacy. This will result in a balance, but it is a stagnant balance. Politics itself needs the presence of a third political force to make it a dynamic balance. In most countries politics is still dominated by the Socialist vs. Capitalist divide. The third political force is absent.

So we see that leftists are constantly stressing the problems caused by rightist supremacy. And they are right. Many problems are caused by rightist greed and blind ideology. However, the left has no alternative to offer, except bloated government and collectivism, which has proven its limits, weak points and dangers. So there is a need for a third force in politics to find the middle ground where the two rivals balance out. This means that political parties espousing an authentic third economic and political ideology – complete in itself, and clearly differing from the existing two – should enter the fray.

From dialectics to trialectics

It is clear that there must be a third force. Balance presupposes a third force. Tony Blair looked for it, but missed it. His basis is labor (socialism). How could we expect him to find it? US mayor Bloomberg is tipped to set up a third party in the US. He has been uttering middle ground noises. Will he find it? Will he run?

In other countries, too, people are looking for the third force. But they are still stuck in dialectics, i.e. reasoning from two opposing poles. Dialectics presupposes there is no connecting third pole. Reasoning from three poles, in which two oppose and the third balances out can be called ‘trialectics’. This is what the world needs at this time.

Synthesis has already appeared

The very fact that we are writing about this must mean that the third pole, balancing the other two is already here. In fact it has always been here, but we have overlooked it for very long. We propose to call the third pole ‘realism’. The other two poles are promoting truths, but they are incomplete. Each lacks the unifying balance. But the synthesis is already there. If you want to know more about this unifying balance, we suggest you buy one of the books on ‘Binary Economics’ advertised on our main page.

True it is that the word ‘binary’ suggests dialectics again. But in fact the theory is based on three premises. It is called ‘binary’ only because it recognizes that labor is just one factor in the process of production. The other factor – capital – plays a role very different from labor. Mainstream economics recognizes this, yet it has not reasoned it out to its logical conclusions. ‘Binary economics’ has.

Our daily video expresses am idea which is certainly helpful, a ‘constitutional referendum-amendment’. It does not concur exactly with the contents of this article, but adds a few interesting ideas.