To the recalcitrant Socialists.

Even though this essay is a critique of both Socialism and Capitalism absolutism, its topic refused to mention the latter. This is base upön the reason that the prophets of the former are more hostile than the latter.
This is exemplified in the latter's ability to have transmute its self into variants, some of which, to an extent, carries Marxist principle.

For the sake of clearity, Capitalism currently have four variants i.e Laissez faire capitalism which is the purest form, State capitalism and Welfarist capitalism both of which bear the indelible mark of Marxism, and the last one Crony capitalism, which is the severest of all, practised by Western controlled Monarchical states like Saudi Arabia and some other oil rich Arab countries.

Socialism on the other hand did not adapt itself into variants, not to mention adopting anyform of external principles.
It virulently uphold its unique features, seeing everyone who does not believe in its principles as a bitter enemy.
Though we, sometimes ago, have such thing as State socialism and Libertarian socialism, but they were not regarded as variants because in the real sense, they are both saying the samething.
And in fact, the latter have ceased to exist, just like its founder Muray Bookchin, since its praticality leads to nothing but pure anarchy.
Likewise, since we have no suchthing as Totalitarian socialism or Monarchical socialism, those talking about Democratic socialism are actually not saying anything unique.

Yet, the hypocrisy of Socialist countries like Russia, China, Cuba etc etc is alarming.
While they practice pure socialism in their respective countries, the friendly gestures display, especially to African countries, is that of imperialism.
Guilty are they therefore, of the same offence of American founding fathers who say "men are born equally" and yet keep hundreds of slaves in his estate.

We here must however note at once, that this essay is not a response attempting to placate the Capitalist apologetics who have found us guilty of only analysing the frailties of Capitalism as the bases for propagating Amityism, while overlooking the wrongs of Socialism.
We have no response to such unfounded accusations.
The reason behind such attacks, of ours, on Capitalism is self explanatory save in the context of Capitalism covering eighty percent of the malign system we seek to reform.

Indeed, what this essay seek to explain is that both Capitalism and Socialism absolutists should stop being blindfolded withing the extremities of their respective pholosophy.
They should assume a sideline position and ask themselves these simple questions that demonstrates the dynamism of knowledge and the world its self :

Why is the world now using a wireless cell phones instead of the wire riddled telephones of nineteenth century ?
Why is the world now using microchip computers instead of the nineteenth century super monster computers ?
What is the actual lesson of dialectical materialism i.e the historical explanation of how a new economic system (synthesis) arrived through the conflicts and contradictions which exists between the extant econömic order (thesis) and those who seek to pull it down (anti thesis) ?
Did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel ever mentioned in their great books that Socialism will continue, infinitly, to be the solution of economic problems ?
Lastly, is it logical enough to use, giving the difèrences in experience and problem that prevail in each epoch, seventeenth century answers as solutions to twentyfirst century questions ?

One of the definitions of philosophy include "critical discussion of received ideas" . Meaning that philosophy entails the ability to learn, unlearn and relearn.
No creed is final. It must grow and change as knowledge grows and changes.
No answer is permanent. Every question have its own unique answers, and so does problems peculiar to every epoch.

As it will appear insane to treat headache with medication ment for stomach ache, so it will, to cling, without modification, to seventeenth century economic principles as the answer to twentyfirst century economic questions.

The capitalists in their quest to maintain their claws upon the world have broken their philosophy into variants, so as to suit the particular problems of our epoch. But those variants are, to a large extent, deceits.

The EOC here therefore, upon the unique problems of our epoch, proposes a new philosophy called "Amityism" as the unique answer to the unique conflict, unique contradiction and the unique economic struggle of twentyfirst century and beyond. Till our everly dynamic world bring about a new age of new problems.