A lot of people confuse socialism, left wing, democracy, and communism with each other. This is because ideas from one generation are commonly usurped by later generations according to their different experiences, rather than creating new names for new ideas arising from those new experiences.
A modern day example is the mobile phone and smartphone.
David Hume explained that such naming mistakes are caused by the mind always choosing the mental processes that expend the least energy — it tries to connect ideas and form new ones without thinking. Thus, the phone became smart and so it was called a smartphone.
In politics, this is commonly seen in the confusion between democracy and socialism.
Democracy first appeared in ancient Greece and was defined by Socrates as a system where people could vote on everything. Socialism first appeared in the 19th century as a natural by-product of the French Revolution and was defined by the French via economists Henri de Saint-Simon and Sismondi as a system which valued workers and peasants, opposite of James and John Stuart Mill who valued the capital owners (After the French Revolution, the aristocrats were lumped into a term called capital owners or capitalists because of the industrial revolution. Note that even this is wrong and was only corrected in 1919 with the invention of the word technocrats).
Another problem is the word 'oligarchy'. Socrates originally used it to mean rule through money. However, modern dictionaries wrongly define oligarchy as 'rule of the few'. But tyranny, timocracy, and aristocracy are all ruled by a few people, so this defintion is useless.
What the dictionary staff did was simply to use the literal meaning of oligarchy as ὀλίγος or 'the few', not knowing that Socrates only used it to differentiate it from 'demos' or 'the many'.
The same problem of modern people corrupting the original meanings afflicts the word 'socialism'. The problem began when Marx , coming from a later generation of revolutionary thinkers, hijacks it and uses it as a means towards Communism, a kind of class-less utopia where there is no freedom (rather, freedom is sacrificed in order to attain utopia). Communism's inherent absurdity would have naturally caused itself to fade away. Unfortunately, the Germans released Lenin into Russia which helped Communism take root and become systematized as the Soviet Union which named itself as a United Soviet Socialist Republic. This translates to English as "states that are ruled by a democratic (socialist) assembly (republic) chosen by the soviet (council)". Thus, the Soviet version of socialism is non-democratic (more like a fake democracy), opposite of the original French definition.
But the Cold war is more recent than the French Revolution, so it would be naive to hope that everyone can go back to the original French definition. As a workaround, I've created a new term called social networkism to bring back the original French idea with the addition of the new concept of the society-organism and networked information, seen in the internet and social media. When systematized as a government, it becomes a 'social network republic' which we shorten to 'social republic' or Republican Socialismso that countries will be named 'The Social Republic of Wakanda' for example. This idea remains true to Plato's Republic and the post-French Revolution socialism.
While this solves such a problem for this generation, future generations might hijack and usurp these repaired ideas and render them messed up as usual. To prevent this, I've created an Ideology Matrix which classifies every socio-economic-political idea that can be possibly generated by the human mind.
It combines David Hume's work which explained the dynamics of the mind, with Plato's Five Regimes which we simplify into the four cycles of Western democracy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy that matches the four castes of Eastern shudras, ksatriyas, brahmins, and vaeshyas. By doing so, we unify eastern and western metaphysics and show that both had the same core observations of human society and the human species, but using different terminologies.
It's a 3D matrix that classifies ideas based on three axes:
The ideas then progress in a cyclical way from democracy to oligarchy, then back to democracy. For example, the expansionist ideas of the tyrannical Mongol Yuan dynasty was overturned by theMing dynasty which started aristocratic but turned oligarchic as it focused on trade ideas and its Treasure fleet, which was later overturned by the isolationist policy of the more-democratic Qing dynasty, only to be later overturned by Communist tyranny.
In America, this can be seen in the oligarchy created by George W. Bush being overturned by the democracy of Obama which was then overturned by the tyranny of Trump. From this we can say that the tyrannical stage of America and China differs in their objective-ness, with China striving for standardization via their social credit system, while Trump goes for more arbitrariness.
The most sustainable political philosophies and economic systems are those that are near the center, which balance non-selfishness and objective-ness, while adapting to changes in the social cycles. In Buddhism, this is called the Middle Way and is essential to sustainable happiness. In economics, this would be Capitalist systems having a bit of Socialism (as what the Nordic countries are doing), or Socialist systems having a bit of Capitalism (as what China is doing, though they seem to take the state capitalism side too far).
The ideology matrix is an essential part of SORAnomics as it will help keep its implementation standardized near the center, yet be customizable in order to fit the current cycle of the country where it will be implemented, making it global yet local at the same time. It is implemented as one of the features of SORA Match