What is “CommuniCorp”?
A logistically-sustainable, incorporated, constitutionally-protected, residence commune for those typical to logistics such as bureaucracy, identity theory and personality politics. The Yuschehood will effectively schematize a commercially oriented, commune style, job-ready, residence-like, live-in environment where remote management personnel assess the logistics of available jobs (typical to types of work that can be completed by resident patrons) and assign representation of responsibility of said matters over to on-property managers who assign jobs to the patrons of “CommuniCorp” (aka “Ellagents”).
Why CommuniCorp Apartments?
It would seem inherent that commercial bureaucracies on this planet ‘accomplish’ (or go through) several (key) different phases in terms of their overall ‘operational processes’. First they develop companies that either have very simple services or products which they can generally screw up but still bill customers for, then they integrate those companies in government in a way that even if (and when) the commercial side of that company starts failing, they still have a financial lifeline. At this point in time they seem to start running commercial aspects of that company into the ground, providing horrendous customer service, over-billing and double-billing customers and generally not correctly validating (and/or maintaining) the mechanisms of their product(s) and/or service(s). At this point in time they then generally start to advance on government offices, cutting budgets, trimming back on supplies and infrastructure and coveting the funds into their own private holdings. At some point in time along this line they will likely also have selected a plot of land, typically nearby a particular culture or collection of people they have been introduced to or done some small element of business with (and not screwed over so far); then they commence development of some kind of weird community proposal – something that seems to be along the lines or semblance of party villa in which the arbitrary ‘ranks’ of they’re agreed upon ‘amazingness’ will be allowed to party and those within the local culture will gain ‘entitlement’ to serve them.
The problem with this process is that it is neither stable in terms of continuity nor is it (apparently) conceivable to somehow operationalise (other than maybe briefly). A quick search on YouTube will reveal the number of times this ridiculous proposal has been tried in that last 50 years alone. Reasons for this seem to be several fold. 1. Not all of the individuals employed within commercial bureaucracies are either bad or evil people. Some of those that end up employed in commercial bureaucracies are decent individuals that want to be hardworking persons but likely either lack real world experience or don’t have the skill set to do anything else (thus the logistic of the party-villa outcome is not wholly agreed upon). 2. Some of the individuals that work in commercial bureaucracies are sufficient workers, however not necessarily good people. When ‘promises’ come down the pipeline of a ‘better life’ (after, and if they do this…), many of those struggling workers feel temporarily emboldened by the belief that they will have finally ‘found a way in’. The irony of this particular consideration is that the people from whom said ‘offers’ originated are neither good people nor bad people, they are neither good workers nor sufficient workers; they are predominantly horrendous at their job and also as human beings.
The ‘end game’ of these bureaucracy proposals always seem to be some kind of villa, segregated from the rest of humanity where only those ‘who have been accepted’ are validated by this villa. Sometimes the villa takes the form of a miniature city, sometimes the villa takes the form of a live-in hotel and more recently, this villa has taken the form of a giant, live-in cruise ship. The promise of a ‘permanent vacation in gala-ville’ is certainly easy enough to comprehend in terms of its conceivable appreciation by those who feel downtrodden by society, can’t seem to find their (own) way in life and/or are generally mal-contented and socially unappreciated.
Deeper Logical Analytics:
how to correctly supply things like proper (healthy) nutrition, validatable safety, security and housing and other considerations such as meaningful and entertaining recreation when the logistics of the mentality of either bureaucracy laden individuals and/or beings that suffer from fractionalized personalities and self-identities are inherently the subject of the logistic is complicated – on the one hand, the reality of the particular considerations of this situation kind of entail that the humanitarian support of these people is a good consideration and likewise thing to behest upon them somehow; however, the reality of what they’re able to do to assist with their care is not always the same kind of thing that seems to validate a sufficient amount of proof that the conceivability of somehow assisting them is immediately understandable.
There’s two coins with two sides to this matter:
On the action / development coin, side (a) tells us that the reality of bearing either greatly bureaucratic history and/or having a fraction-based self identity (in which an individuals subjectivity to systemic functions has either made available or not allowed them to develop a singular, cohesive self-identity) does not necessarily illustrate that the responsibility for their progress, care and growth is necessarily (only) theirs alone – this does not however suggest that other human beings (or society in general) should necessarily be inappropriately inconvenienced for them. Side (b) tells us also that these human beings (with expectations of bureaucracy and fractional self identities) are not the same type of human beings as most other human beings – on the one hand, they still have the physical extension of bodies and perceptions albeit are technically not usually able to cohese these perceptions of the outside world mentally in a way that is coherent and definitive sufficiently to learn (as a single individual) from their experiences in reality. To that degree, many of these individuals are merely biological animals in human bodies, subject to the will of ‘the system’ (which technically isn’t an actual thing that does exist) – however, the type of biological animal they are is a human animal – they still possess the same neurological interface as regular humans and are still capable of the same overall potential as basically any other human being, no matter what – the question then becomes: what kind of logistical structure or practice is the most correctly accurate structure and/or practice to validate these human animals of systemia into some kind of coherent framework that they’re experiences validate teaching them how to learn to become a single human being with either a non-bureaucratically-marginalized personality complex and/or a being with a singular self-identity instead of a bunch of systemically concatenated bunch of fractions of self identity which they tend to wield in such a way that they themselves become puppets of their own insufficiency to themselves as puppet masters of their own fate – typically without enough comprehension to do anything other than enact perceptual and incomprehensible weirdocity upon themselves as living beings. So basically, the construct in question becomes what this writer has considered as “Ellagent”, a conceievability of phenomenally processive, edificed stability construct which validates the logistics of what society, as a whole continues to hear from these specific ‘beings’ again and again, and the practice inherently is defined by subjectively ‘restricting’ what would nominally be considered a ‘full amount’ of provision to what they’re entitled to receive for their efforts, merely due to the reality of the fact that the thing they need is social togetherness and responsible social management that focuses on cohesive personal growth and individual sociological adaptation.
On the reflective / moral coin, there’s the following consideration. Side (a) would connotate or infer that these individuals have to have, very much, at least a makeshift appearance of society, however that makeshift appearance has to be sufficiently thoughtfully constructed that it will allow for their personal progress and growth as individuals (if such thing so happens – and for those that it doesn’t, that they are somehow content within this makeshift society in such a way hat they’re existence there isn’t burdensome to society – such that they are able to commit to minimal portionable amounts of work and that they’re not disruptive to the individuals within the makeshift community in which they exist). In this regard, that they are provided with healthy food choices and safe and stable accommodation has to be considered, however the other side of this coin side (b) is such that if their elements of personal consumption are over provided that they will inherently consume themselves into a rut of unexpressibility which is technically the opposite of the purpose of doing this in the first place; furthermore that in order to learn to grow and develop as individual humans, that the provisions which they are given aren’t of such inherent cost to society overall and in general that by the time they finally figure out how to adapt to the reality of having a singular self identity or some form of cohesive personality (by not relying on the falsities and misrepresentations so common to the bureaucratic element) that they are not (in fact) so indebted to regular society that they’ll be unable to make their way at this point (thus invalidating the logistics of the premise from which this entire project is assessed to begin with).