Not commenting on the historical accuracy of your system, but one thing that does seem possible is "rule by algorithm", where there isn't actually any person in power anymore, and instead there are automated system managing some given status quo.

Of course one might argue that such a system is really just a dictatorship of whoever can influence the algorithm.

where there isn't actually any person in power anymore — Echarmion

- ok, but that wouldn't be out of the triangle. I am not necessarily interested in persons but in how the system manages the resources, the laws, the freedoms, etc.. I see nothing fundamentally different just by replacing humans with machines.

You can always set up categories that include all possible options. For example, using the classical meaning of republic - a system of government where the head of state is not a hereditary monarch - all political systems are either a republic or they aren't.

It terms of different views, one might note that for most of human history, people had no concept of "the economy" as a separate entity. There were also many societies where the political institutions had little to no coercive power, so while there were technically leaders with autocratic powers, they didn't actually control "the economy", because there was no such concept, and they could only really use their powers if there were enough people backing them up.

all political systems are either a republic or they aren't. — Echarmion

A republic is a republic, while ''they aren't'' can mean many things. I offered 3 clear extremes and I stated that any future political system will be either one of those 3 clearly defined extremes, or somewhere between them. Can we go beyond and have something totally different than what I mentioned? :)

It seem to me one could imagine a society where one person makes the rules, but the rules aren't enforced. i.e. centralized power (as in A) but no coercive power (as in C).

That's correct, but it's just a combination of things inside that triangle. I want something totally outside.

If something about human nature changed, about what is core to humanity, then something different could develop in terms of forms of the existence or governance. IT could contribute to this, or even ideas on gender, age and perceptions of rights and ideologies, or the growing reality of tribalism.

Edit: or even what it means to be human.

It terms of different views, one might note that for most of human history, people had no concept of "the economy" as a separate entity. — Echarmion

That’s an interesting point. Today we are the economy, except that it also operates as a separate entity in the sense that we have very little control over it, we virtually serve it. It dictates so much about who we are, what we can expect or how we have to change. So I think this is an important, or crucial, element in regard to what future governance could look like.

Politics are basically governance and diplomacy. Anarchy is a lack of politics. So, you want something outside of one person controlling everything and everyone controlling everything- that's also not AI. I'm not quite sure where to go from there. Something like seeing a groundhog shadow or thunderstorm to decide on what to do and what not to do? You could have a lottery and alternate or choose a random position in between either extreme to follow for a time. There's no politics if someone isn't following someone else, even if that someone is themselves (the larger majority).

You could have a lottery — Outlander

“ There was in Athens (and also Elis, Tegea, and Thasos) a smaller body, the boulē, which decided or prioritised the topics which were discussed in the assembly. In addition, in times of crisis and war, this body could also take decisions without the assembly meeting. The boulē or council of 500 citizens was chosen by lot and had a limited term of office, which acted as a kind of executive committee of the assembly.” Wikipedia.

I was also thinking of the Indian tribes of the American Plains and how tribes might operate in times of high technology and the United Nations as a central source of management but without control if it’s constituents.

What would you call it when people elect a government and then treat them like dirt and expect them to do all the dirty work, then set the press on them to dig into their personal life’s, to harass them so much that their interviews are just talking points and then threaten them with poor ratings until their leader resigns, who’s not really the leader because he’s fighting for his life inside the party, so they switch their policies about but it doesn’t help and the party is booted out because people didn’t get what they want. And so it goes.
And states begin to ignore the voice of the Federal Government and declare a sort of independent statehood who bargains with overseas governments for finance and ignore even the legislation of their own Federal Government. And the people, the tribes, protest and create chaos until they get some sort of submission from local government who is in bed with business and losing control of their own cities. People begin to move from state to state where they find support of their own ideologies. Some cities win some lose. Some are no longer represented in the Federal Government, they declare their own borders sacrosanct.

Business operates from tax shelters or business-friendly states. Cash has gone.

If something about human nature changed, about what is core to humanity, then something different could develop in terms of forms of the existence or governance. IT could contribute to this, or even ideas on gender, age and perceptions of rights and ideologies, or the growing reality of tribalism. — Brett

I see your point. My question wasn't necessarily referring to humans or politics as we know it, but to conscious beings and their ways of living together.

There are other options and zero need to change human nature.

I think knowledge of history would be helpful. The middle ages and feudalism is a very boring period of history. A leader takes his followers to beat up their neighbors and take everything they can, and this is the way of life. Not good conditions for building up an economy at all but people didn't know any better.

Eventually, technology lead to better trade routes and people began making money trading, manufacturing, and selling goods. It was expensive to supply a ship and travel to far away places so those who wanted to do this had to find someone to invest in the adventure and the investors wanted to protect their investment, so we get laws and law enforces and banks and a world without money becomes a world dependent on money. Ever since then, we have been struggling with better ways to manage money, and as more people have been empowered with money, they start getting politically active and politically powerful and they start demanded laws that favor their interest.

Economic growth was held back by insisting paper money be backed by gold, so we invent the silver dollar. All our coins had value because of the mineral content, Now it is no longer gold or silver, nickel, and copper that give our money value, but the gross national product and credit. The point is things have changed a lot and they need to keep changing.

Politically I strongly favor democracy and I wish we would replace autocratic control of industry with democratic control of industry, and that we add things to the list of utilities we hold publically. It is not that hard to improve our organization and raise the standard of living while empowering the people at the same time. This goes with a major investment in education, especially education for democracy that assures individuals have political and economic power.

Whoops, deleted

My question wasn't necessarily referring to humans or politics as we know it, but to conscious beings and their ways of living together. — Eugen

So was I. I was looking at the beginning of a trajectory into the future and where it might go.

will the biological and technological evolution bring you to something totally new in terms of coexistence? — Eugen

As a result of biological evolution, it would seem doubtful. We'd still be human. We'd either- possibly- just become more intellectually-inclined, less violent, and more tolerant of one another. We'd have less and less of a need to be "on top" of our fellow man to develop properly and go through life with contentedness and more humble. Or, perhaps the exact opposite seeing as certain refined qualities can seem 'boring' or 'unappealing' to some in terms of relationships and eventual procreation, especially compared to the allures and potential gains of the opposite. It could go either way I imagine.

Technology is interesting, if not alarming. If a scientist one day invents a true AI simulation 100% indistinguishable from reality, where we can all be gods of our respective universe and obviously life, and is able to allow anyone to test it and "return" to tell about it- I got a hunch many, many people would participate. That, obviously, would change everything. Aside from that, anythings possible sure. Maybe one day we'll invent a miniature power device that is powered by itself (or similar scenario) that can power a car indefinitely - or a pill that costs a billionth of a cent to make that will give you all the nutrition and energy you need for a day - or apartments that miniaturize you upon entry allowing 100,000 people to each live, sleep, and wake up in their own private dream mansion that altogether takes up no more space than your favorite corner store. That would solve, or at least change, everything.

Today we are the economy, except that it also operates as a separate entity in the sense that we have very little control over it, we virtually serve it. — Brett

That's like saying just because your body is different from your mind it's a burden and you're enslaved to it because you have to use it to make yourself/it breakfast every morning.

The only notable point about it being a 'separate entity' is that no you can't club someone else over the head and become richer. Not openly as an individual anyway. Though.. you could always advocate for war. I suppose that is an individual doing what I said cannot be done as one.

As a result of biological evolution, it would seem doubtful. We'd still be human. — Outlander

That may be true, but despite being human we’re still a lot different from serfs living in sod huts. Our perspective on life and morals can change, which in turn affects what we believe to be necessary and how we coexist.

It could go either way I imagine. — Outlander

I imagine, then, that it could go in more directions than “either way”.

or apartments that miniaturize you upon entry allowing 100,000 people to each live, sleep, and wake up in their own private dream mansion that altogether takes up no more space than your favorite corner store. — Outlander

That doesn’t seem to relate to systems of coexistence. All it does is play with imaginary possibilities. Which is fine but it doesn’t contribute much to what systems of coexistence might exist outside of Eugen’s triangle. To me there has to be a trail from here to there, not just a leap into fanciful futures, otherwise, as you say, anything’s possible, but it’s not necessarily likely.

I am not necessarily interested in persons but in how the system manages the resources, the laws, the freedoms, etc.. I see nothing fundamentally different just by replacing humans with machines. — Eugen

Obviously there would have to be a change in human nature. Eugen is right. Just replacing humans with machines doesn’t change much about the triangle. But to me the affect of technology in changing human nature then opens up possibilities for something outside of the triangle. For instance just the possibility that people no longer interact physically and communicate through technology and receive everything they know about the contemporary world through that technology would have an affect on how we coexist and what sort of governance might emerge and

how the system manages the resources, the laws, the freedoms, etc.. — Eugen

Today we are the economy, except that it also operates as a separate entity in the sense that we have very little control over it, we virtually serve it.
— Brett — Outlander

That's like saying just because your body is different from your mind it's a burden and you're enslaved to it because you have to use it to make yourself/it breakfast every morning. — Outlander

What I meant is that once the economy served the people: it’s existence created jobs, taxes, development, etc. it allowed a state to grow towards something that made peoples’ life’s better. But as we found out with the WFC the economy must be propped up with whatever it takes, and as we see with COVID the economy is beginning to look more important than lives. When it slows down people are encouraged to spend to keep it alive. So now we’re joined at the hip. So I think we are the economy. Which is only slightly relevant to the OP.

My post was in response to this:

It terms of different views, one might note that for most of human history, people had no concept of "the economy" as a separate entity.
— Echarmion — Brett

despite being human we’re still a lot different from serfs living in sod huts. — Brett

Are we really though? Sure we have more innovation, resources, and know how but, I'd argue, not much has changed internally beyond our surroundings and the various freedoms/circumstance taken for granted that resulting progress has allowed. We still share the same hopes, dreams, wants, wishes, fears, and then some those before us did. Be it a serf in a sod hut or a well off executive in a million dollar home. We embrace what brings us joy in life and seek to not only maintain and grow it, while simultaneously avoiding if not fearing that which brings us to question or poses an existential threat to what we know and love. The fears of today are not much different than those of yesteryear- oppression, war, death, disease, social unrest, etc. Neither are the timeless pleasures and sources of joy.

That doesn’t seem to relate to systems of coexistence. All it does is play with imaginary possibilities. — Brett

You may be correct however not long ago the same could be said to men who suggested the idea of mankind traveling the world through the skies or weapons that could annihilate entire city-states in the blink of an eye. All these things were imagined possibilities- that became reality. And most certainly do affect systems of coexistence.

outside of Eugen’s triangle — Brett

By the title of the post we're speaking in the context of 'political systems', which to my understanding means, governance and diplomacy. Correct me if I'm wrong. If no one is governing or engaging in diplomacy, we have anarchy- as included in the triangle. So, something outside of this triangle.. is something/someone governing. As AI was already dismissed that would seem to leave only humans. So, between a single individual governing everyone (monarchy) and all individuals governing each other (democracy) it would seem, at least in my mind, we've painted ourselves into a corner. Eager to hear any alternate forms of political systems (aside from anarchy, already included) that are outside of this triangle.

Side note about anarchy. It never lasts. Controlled anarchy perhaps. But not true anarchy. It is human nature to form or join groups that are mutually beneficial (or at least appear to be) to an individual's survival, happiness, and quality of life. An individual acting alone will never reach any notable position or ensure survival. Whether that group is formed from brute strength and control over others or wit, charisma, and hope for the future ("A leader is a dealer in hope" -Napoleon Bonaparte) is not an exceedingly relevant factor. It simply always happens that way. Essentially, one asks them self: "Why would I want to be running around in an anarchistic world not sure if I'm going to be clubbed to death or robbed or otherwise forced to flee from my home at any given moment, if I can just join these guys who will protect me? I'm going to have to work and provide for myself either way, so, why not do it in a favorable and peaceful setting?"

What I meant is that once the economy served the people: it’s existence created jobs, taxes, development, etc. — Brett

Do you not have a job or know someone who does? Do you not have any public parks, sidewalks, roads, emergency services, etc. funded by taxpayer dollars? You don't live in a house? You don't have any new buildings being constructed nearby? You don't have a military that prevents I dunno whatever foreign boogeyman you're been instructed to fear from walking through your streets and calling it their own? It's all there man.

the economy is beginning to look more important than lives. — Brett

It's because lives are so important the economy has such a high priority. The economy is wealth which is basically resources. They're not called 'resources' because they're commodities, or non-essential things that just bring us extra pleasure whenever we please. It's what allows us to live and survive, including defense.

But back to the triangle. I stand by the idea it covers all possibilities of what defines a 'political system', as well as the opposite, being anarchy. Eager to hear any others.

I’ll address your posts but we’re beginning to go off topic I think. But maybe not.

The economy is wealth which is basically resources. — Outlander

I don’t think that’s really true. The economy is a beast that needs to be fed. It’s also numbers on paper. If we were in control then we wouldn’t have recessions or inflation. I don’t think it’s because lives are so important that the economy has such high priority. Obviously it serves our needs. But the fact that it can hurt us so much suggests we are caught up in something we have little control over. And so your following post is addressed.

Do you not have a job or know someone who does? Do you not have any public parks, sidewalks, roads, emergency services, etc. funded by taxpayer dollars? You don't live in a house? You don't have any new buildings being constructed nearby? You don't have a military that prevents I dunno whatever foreign boogeyman you're been instructed to fear from walking through your streets and calling it their own? It's all there man. — Outlander

Are we really though? — Outlander

You ask if we’re different from serfs in sod huts.

This is my post.

Our perspective on life and morals can change, which in turn affects what we believe to be necessary and how we coexist. — Brett

Yes we are. Time most definitely changes morals and perspective. The very idea of freedom, of Serfdom, of democracy, of womens’ rights, of colonialism, of racism, of patriarchy, of gender, of civil rights, of human rights, all have changed.

Eager to hear any alternate forms of political systems (aside from anarchy, already included) that are outside of this triangle. — Outlander

This is the purpose of the OP, to discuss and develop thoughts that might suggest something. Otherwise you get what you suggested: nothing.

My question is: does the triangle I mentioned cover 100% of the possibilities or will the biological and technological evolution bring you to something totally new in terms of coexistence? If we could observe a civilization 1 million years more advanced, could we find striking resemblances to what we have had so far in history? — Eugen

What you stated are the theoretical extremes, which basically cannot happen.

Furthermore, when asking about the civilization in 1 million years, do notice that human beings haven't been around for 1 million years, let alone "civilization". 100 000 years ago Homo Sapiens was migrating from Africa to other continents. So take some zeroes off, better scope would be 10 000 years. Lucky if we get anything right (which we naturally won't know) about 1 000 years. With 100 years we can say a lot and the World is quite the same as with 10 years from now not much has changed.

By the title of the post we're speaking in the context of 'political systems', which to my understanding means, governance and diplomacy. Correct me if I'm wrong. If no one is governing or engaging in diplomacy, we have anarchy- as included in the triangle. So, something outside of this triangle.. is something/someone governing. As AI was already dismissed that would seem to leave only humans. So, between a single individual governing everyone (monarchy) and all individuals governing each other (democracy) it would seem, at least in my mind, we've painted ourselves into a corner. Eager to hear any alternate forms of political systems (aside from anarchy, already included) that are outside of this triangle. — Outlander

Basically my question is that if my triangle covers 100% of all possibilities

Assuming the apparent exceptions listed throughout this discussion are included- for some reason. And co-existence is used in the strict context of politics, simply meaning governance and diplomacy. Yes, someone leading something has to exist in some way, shape, or form. Granted with all you've arbitrarily defined as "what counts and what doesn't" it's a bit like asking can a quadrilateral room have more than 4 walls. Not really.

I think that it would be helpful to develop a more dynamic way of seeing the social world. We often see politics as socioconformative and I think that is holding back many social potentials that would flourish in a dynamical model. Philosophical debates instead of ideological ones would be wonderful.

I have spent 7 years exploring sociodynamics and its so vast. One conformative issue of society is that we apply concepts to ourselves, the concept works as a general identification and in a collective based on a conceptual model it creates an ideal of this conceptual singularity, ideologies. I would rather like to introduce a more metaphorical appliance in that concepts work as a node, a theme if you like, and from that we have different ways of viewing it. This gives us perspectivalness in that we see the concept as a multitude not as a singularity.
I also think that the world is more metaphorical appliable than conceptual in that there is a vastness of variants out there that through a conceptual lens is treated as one general thing.
I think that the social room for dialogue came out of the word as metaphor, and through this ability to engage in dialogue, philosophy developed.

Thank you all for your answers, I really appreciate it! So far, I guess my triangle covers 100% of possibilities. I'm waiting for more answers.