Leptons and quarks organize themselves into sub-atomic particles which include properties that quarks don't have. Sub-atomic particles organize themselves into atoms. Atoms organize themselves into molecules (and ionic substances...). Organic molecules organize themselves into cells.
Cells organize themselves into tissues. Tissues organize themselves into organs. Organs organize themselves into organisms.
Ken Wilber says that it's a mistake the follow the hierarchy (or "holarchy") up into multiples of organisms, because you start running into problems where the parts are no longer interchangeable and no longer have a single purpose. He says you start following neural systems up into the noosphere (also spelled "nousphere").
But the noosphere does not exist in a vacuum; it has to have an underlying mechanical framework. How do organisms organize themselves?
I don't think it's into political structures; those do not exist for organization, but rather, in sort of a vain attempt to save the politically favored from Samsaric Angst (and, failing, heads are bound to roll...).
And so, organisms organize themselves into families, and families into...
Now we run into conceptual problems. The English language lacks words corresponding to useful concepts in terms of social organization. "Community" is the wrong word. For one thing, it is one of those politically-polluted words whose meaning changes dramatically according to context. When certain people say "high-school students must do 'voluntary' community work (note the double-speak) to teach them the "value" of 'community'", it has a dramatically different meaning from other uses of the word "community". It depends on who is taking, and about whom they are talking.
Yiddish has the word "Mischpoche" (so does German, but the German word has a different and negative connotation that I am not alluding to...). Hebrew the word "Eruv". I can not think of any English words corresponding to either concept.
"I owe you one for that, Sol".
"It's OK; you're Mischpoche".
"Eruv" is roughly "Jewish community" but it entails concepts not normally embedded in the word "community".
Then you get languages like Sanskrit which are particularly rich in words for relationships, which do not exist in English, because the underlying concepts do not exist within English-speaking culture, having been totally occluded by political filters.
In any case, the idea is higher-ordered collections of human organisms, which do not entail political baggage--including and especially Socialistic collectivizations and its problems of central-planning and moral hazard.
At this point, "ascertained persistence" is impossible for the prole's until and unless they figure out how to organize themselves. The day that you can shop for personal security like you shop for tonight's dinner has already turned to twilight.
