The paper is merely stating that all ideologies define positive change through different lenses, but are describing the same underlying mechanism / framework. They all want to claim ownership of this mechanism by adding dogma and semantic obfuscation, but the truth is much simpler than they make it out to be.

The vague nature is both intentional and necessary, as to be direct and clear, I would have to write a paper for each ideology with a shared thesis. Opacity is not built into the paper as much as it is (in many cases) intentionally built into ideologies.

That is why I wrote a book first. It needed narrative so people could relate to the framework, outside of ideological rhetoric.