Politics of the social web / collective self-referentiality

How to give concrete form to such a vague and ambiguous word as 'politics'? One way, is by reifying the social web. This is not an abstract entity, but a very concrete web of interests, interaction, directedness, etc. As such, it is very much like our ordinary road and transportation infrastructure. This is its form; its manifestation is the flow of politics, shared habitus, etc., just as infrastructure manifests the flow of good, people, and shared / connecting spaces, culture, etc.

As such, this web being a collective phenomenon, as well as free of being owned by any individual or group of individuals; it is expected to follow the tragedy of the commons. The only solution is provided if it happens to organize itself into a collective self-referential entity. In any disrespected political form of state, be it dictatorship, oligarchy, etc, one can point out the unfulfillment of this ideal arrangement. Collective self-referentiality is not unknown to us: it is life, it is being an organism. And it is true: a dictatorship is not an organism; rather, it is an internally disconnected environment, or space, wherein which a (dictatorial) organism has proliferated and feeds off of the rest of the environment.

Key questions:

• How is self-referentiality possible (the 'self' is an abstraction -- how is an abstraction referenced?)
  --> Maybe it can be turned around as well: possibly this state of 'being such an organism', in a structural sense, whatever it may encompass, can be taken as a definition of self-referentiality.

• To which degree can this 'organism-ness' indeed be taken to be a distinguishing feature of sociopolitical patterns (with their accepted status of value), and does it indeed cover the dynamics on would want to see? (I imagine not, there will be some key nuances.)