MFK

The specific problem with Zeitgeisters using the very package-deal concept of "structural violence" is that, in their ideology - it is intended to denote and then to crush the free market ! In fact (try to not laugh about it if you can) - they specifically apply it to the the concept of a free economy, like if this vague abstraction of higher-order was precisely design to counteract the concrete possibility of having practical, effective freedom. In the worst debate of all time, both side included, - the debate between P.Jo and Stefbot - notice that the notion comes up at the very moment that was being invoked the concept of a free market, as some sort of "antagonism": "Structural violence > free market". Argh ! dude ! that has insulted my intelligence so much ! "Ding ! ding ! ding ! BULLSHIT NO APOLOGIES" ! OMFG ! It's like if I was saying to you that I'm a single caucasian male, and you were replying: "No ! you're a black single-parent female with eleven kids" ! Confucius said somewhere that every problems comes in the world when people start to "doublethink" (okay that one is from Orwell) - when they use the term "hot" to mean "cold", the term "right" to mean "left", etc. Associate the concept of "structural violence" to its very theoretical opposite is an act of intellectual sabotage (anti-mind and de facto anti-life): there's nothing to do with that crap. All examples you quote in your post are relevant to the etymological meaning of the notion: effectively - every kind of statism, planned economy, welfare, communitarianism, etc., are explicits form a massive, ideological, "structural" violence. A free market cannot be "structurally" violent - it would denote mental illness to process that kind of incoherent argument. Every system which is not free can however be analyzed through the spectrum and the tools invoked by the notion of structural violence. But we all know that their (Zeitgeisters) problem isn't really with the existence of violence - but with the existence of sovereign self-ownership: as abused children - they cannot processed the fact that this world is organized by its very identifiable, individual properties. Again - they equate "natural laws" and the so-called "scientific method" with: absolute freedom, peace, solidarity, holism, transcendance, etc. - a bunch of absurd and disgusting anti-concepts trolling and parading these days on the Internet. Confucius shrugged... !

We all have heard the catch-phrase that "salary is slavery". What do you think: is it true in your understanding ? Does the "middle class" is actually the occidental slave caste, like was the Zealots for Sparta ? What is a salary for ? What does it rewards objectively ? I've read this morning a really interesting thread in the "self-knowledge" section, in which we're taught that any "reward system" is, against the common perception of it - a threat, a misleading, a blocker for a proper learning and cognitive development. At a psycho-sexual level, the reward system is what differentiate the human sexuality from the animalistic one: most animals doesn't have (or, more accurately, cannot process what we call: "sex for pleasure") the possibility to enjoy sexual intercourse only for the sake of it, which means: they literally cannot "choose" voluntarily to have sexe, since they're biochemically drove by their hormones at distincts periods of the year (the rut). Pleasurable sex is then strongly linked to the cortex, the memory, the ability to manage and organize perception, etc. - en résumé, all the premises allowing for a "reward system". So what is concretely rewarded here ? As I see it - the notion or "reward" clash big time with objectivity: the pleasure can only be felt at a psychological level, as an emotion; a reward is then a evolutionary mechanism whose purpose is too reinforce some (possibly any) behaviour who make an individual felt "good" (here the concept of "goodness" remaining concretely undefined in most case - since the journey to virtue is, as we know, terribly painful, even if ultimately releasing). The fact is that a reward, intended or not, psycho-somatic (reflex) or purposeful (given by an other person) - have always the outcome to consolidate some of your behaviour. Now, just keep all these various information consciously present. The question I wanted to ask you is: Imagine that every of our basic needs (necessities of life: clean water & air, shelter, food, clothes, etc.) - are permanently satisfied through automation and mechanization ? For sure, I'm taking into account that people will limits their objective needs to the minimum: there's no serious place for inflation, greed, aesthetics in general - in the field of human needs: these are the volatile, intermittents goals of H wants. For example, there wouldn't be sort of "free pass" for obese nor that it would be luxuries for limited individuals. The key to understand what I'm saying is this: H needs are essentially objective, finite, defined, quantifiable, etc. What everybody needs at an objective level is a shelter, not a mansion; warm clothes, not a complete fashionable wardrobe. It's like in the late interview with AR when she were dressed in a red dress, talking about the fact that if you want to accede you imperatively need to use your reason - and then the camera shows us a young, pretty coquette lady rolling her eyes with a disgusted face: that Lolita hadn't understood the difference being involved here. Because that every of her H needs were automatically satisfied since her birth by daddy's money and that consequently she had never experienced any form or real deficiency - for her, the existence of some "means of production", the very philosophical notion of "work" was a conceptual fantasy, some "rude stuff" invented by vulgar people to mock the aristocrats to which she belonged by "birth right". Oops, I'm digressing again ! Don't worry - I'm not falling in any sort of marxist ideation: the struggle nowadays is no more "cultural", or in Marx's terms: "dialectical" - now it must be seen as a scientific problem, the solutions being absolutely technicals. So I'm not talking about the suppression of the right to the "pursuit of happiness" - I'm rather talking about the very means to make it possible, which are: the automation of the means of production regarding the H needs. In an techno-efficient economy in which all (remember that they are only a few, and finite) of your H needs would be assumed and assured by a global, automatized production - would you accept a salary to "reward" a job involving mainly creativity, arts, speculation, etc. ? Surely, the value/role of money is larger and more complex - and cannot be reduce to the phenomenon of the salary. People would trade concerning H wants until the end of the world: no problem with that. The only objective way to trade non-objective objets and/or values is effectively by using a common, standard medium of exchange - who serves then as an insurance policy, a malleable but tangible tool to regulate or manifest the subjective value of all the luxuries, dreams, fantaisies, etc., that H wants can generate punctually. But my thesis is simply that the use of money to "trade" necessary values and de facto needs - is inefficient, counter-productive and completely absurd. I simply cannot conceptualize a practicable "free market" without any universal automation of objective needs. The brain (and reason) cannot work is they aren't feed. Individuals would have to identify and measure their context/specific needs and reasonable life's requirements: we need only very few things to live well on a physiological level - all that outgrowth that is no more objective in the sense of necessity: it is playful, contingent. The only viable, logical salary for creativity and any work of the Mind should be the necessities of life. What do you think ?

Well resumed, Alan Chapman - but I should add a third point to your enumeration: 3) There's is parasites at the bottom but also at the top: what do we do with the "rich kids" (who're BTW going really mad on snapchat these days), the psychopath narcissists, the introverted nerds who keep (and/or retire) jealously and hysterically their capital from the market, etc. ? This list isn't exhaustive: we should also consider the various lobbyists, the corporations, the so-called infectious monopolies ("cancer stage of capitalism"). And last not least: what do we do with our beloved "anarcho-primitivists", neo-luddits and co. - those who "produce" only enough to satisfy their vital needs, or retroactively, by ashaming and destructing the modern means of production - force the production to regress to some faniitaisist "communist" initial stage ? Their outcome isn't completely non-valuable (perhaps more "invaluable") - but who's interested in returning to the Stone age ? What individuals need the most is an objective, meaningful purpose. Check your fucking premises ! Scan and sound rigorously your infancy. To go back live in the wood cannot be in any way whatsoever a sane, intelligible, productive purpose: it is caused by mental impotence, a lot of fear and guilt linked to an initial distorted reality perception. EDIT: But, hey guys ? Isn't "being rich" only means: to have a vagina ? It is for this very reason that no richman will conserve their wealth on the long run. The actual exemplary situation to understand that joke of mine is this young blond hunter who got a contract with l'Oréal only because of the antiquated (naive) rules of seduction: put women on pedestals. The fact is that she's born that way, with these very features: it's perhaps what the OP was looking for when he start his quest for the "richness-in-itself" - the apriori, intrinsic but reversely obsolescent richness of the Glory Hole ! (Remember this quote from Alien 3 - nation's wisdom: "Treat a queen like a whore and a whore like a queen")

This topic remembered me when I was (uselessly, for sure) arguing with muslims about the "fifth pillar" of their religion - which is, namely: the "Zakat" (sort of "religious" income tax for which to obey you have to give away a fraction of your annual salary to poor). It is funny because you only have to switch the premise: "Divine commandment" - by: "State decree", and you get exactly the same thing. There's no structural or operational differences between both: the ashamed spirit of their abused (as childs) violent leaders - forces them to pray the divine oppressor and to submit "symbolically" to the very abuse. But the reason why I was telling all that is because their principal argument wasn't, unexpectedly, the fact that it was plainly a God's order - they were putting upfront the fact that many "people" (you never hear the metaphysically grounded concept of individual in their filthy mouths) are suffering right now (the so-called "poor" - an anti-concept for a truly uncontrollable-hysterical emotion) - and that it is the duty of the "honest man" to help them. Now, I'm certainly not denying that there will always be place to improvement in a productive economy, or, to size the controverse in a better way: I'm not critizicing this position because I'm against "solidatiry", "charity", "sharing and gift" economies - no, I'm struggling against the fact, like everyone here, that these objectively opportunistic behaviours arn't only suggested of developed as an economical tools by their proponents - but imposed by the top, intrinsically involuntary. And it's at that point that it become interesting: muslims would systematically refuse or undermine this position, and not only because of their religion: in fact, it seems to be a semantical issue. Let me explain. As it has been well-exposed in that thread - to be considered "rich" is only a subjective value, a perceptual attribute or reality, who must be replaced in its specific context. There's no intrinsic "richness" (no more than its counter-part, an intrinsic "poorness"). But many individuals will automatically tend to reduce "being rich" to the wealth's dimension. As we can imagine, the same perceptual flaw (flawed concepts because they allow context-dropping and are limited to only one of their potential characteristic) was probably happening historically in other/many forms: for example, the "power" of the Witch-Doctor would be attributed (fundamentalized) to his "connection" with the hereafter; the power of the monarch would be psychologically associated with his name, narrative, etc. This is a very old bias and it's still going on nowadays: we hysterically "identify" the prestige of some individual and/or status through the dominant trend actually bugging our mind. In this so-called "neo-capitalist" era we're reducing every individual to its wealth. This is nothing more than fashion. Back to our story: when you accept illogical, unprovable, super-natural premises in your life - you'll be prone to this perceptual fallacy also known and studied in the literature under he name: "fundamental attribution bias". It's like if the purely abstract concept of "richness" became an object, a substance - "something" existing, constituting the 'individual, not just defining him in a specific context. Richness can always come aposteriori, meaning: after that some objective wealth have been produced - and it won't sustain if the "rich" doesn't continue to improve is skills and "means of production", as Marx himself woult put it ! To conclude on this - to ask: "Does everybody can be rich" is an intrinsically flawed question, pure meaningless babbling except if we treat it like I did in that post - by analysing it, linking the abstract void with the existing concretes making it viable. Now, compare with: "Does anyone can produce new wealth" ? In other words: Does anyone can perform the concrete actions needed in order to create wealth and then, perceptually, metaphorically - be considered "rich" ? - YES.

Do you remember the movie "Aliens 3" (David Fincher) - in which Ripley is rescued on a planet who happens to be a gigantic maximum security prison ? The narrative tells us that the prisoners are of the "YY - chromosome", - but essentially theyr are composed of black men, mentally ill individuals, rapists and savages, all religious freaks BTW. I think this is an excellent example of what we call: "naive realism" - what you perceive is what it is, this caricatural, monomaniac aggravation of one simple wicked characteristic as the whole thing, cognitive inferential fallacy also known as the: "fundamental attribution bias". What is fun here is that this opus of the franchise was certainly the best one, considering the psycosocial exploration of the protagonists interactions. The James Cameron's version was a grotresque, childish "action flick" with no philosophical meaning or purpose in it. Perhaps that this modern kind of "Panem & circences" is what the masses need in order to stay quiet: when "our" actual biased culture try to define characters (see 'Romantic manifsto" by AR) - it is always a pure fiasco, in which the "minor difference narcissism" (Freud) is the dominating trend, forbidding all nuances, every criticism.

Yes, a kind of "natural fallacy" - when someone refer to the comical, meaningless "human nature" to reify the "necessity" of an actually unsustainable situation. I once had a great discussion about this phenomenon: one should remark that when this anti-concept arises in a conversation - it always comes from the side of the self-perceived "loser", and the term is systematically intended to legitimate something bad, pessimistic. It seems to me to be the ultimate manifestation of the psychological determinism, self-centred, self-destructive - the caricatural, gross, vague projection of a frustrated and maladaptive individual on the entire world. In my experience - the best argument against that type of "statist counter-revolution" is this one: you should point out the fact that the expression "human nature" is systematically intended and applied to qualify unsustainable, prehistorical, involuntary, sub-communicationnal, etc. - behaviours. What about the innumerable inventions made by men in the course of history: printing, car, space travel, vaccine, etc. ? You can also use the excellent "Argumentative ethics" originated by Hoppe: the very conversation you're having defy literally the impotence of man, it's supposed "nature" remained trapped in the remnants of the so-called "bellum omnium, contra omnes". It would be explicitly illogical, inaccurate and ridicule to define the wicked outcome of man by its nature - and not the good ones ! But if your statist is by chance also a believer (and a "belieber", accessorily) - forget it: move on !

The fact is that, in a "moneyless" society - there's will be still means/forms/medium of exchange, the only difference being that they call it actually: "Resources-based". They talk about trading (or "sharing" - which is an anti-concept, a bogging word) resources directly (as Stefan said: all serious/real economies are and will be "resources-based"); they just don't understood yet that money is simply the universalization of any materiel/physical means of exchange that we can have used in the past. Money is simply set for any kind of resources your want, or any rate, price. need, etc. - that you have and for which you're looking for some compensation. Zeitgeisters and co. evade astutely the reality of the swap-based form of their economical system - by pretending (or, more accurately: prophesying) that the "automation + altruism" formula will immediately surpass and outgrowth every type of economy we've known in the past; this is no more "money never sleeps", but: "machines never get tired"; no more the fact that when you're trying to exchange only manufactured products it is impossible to match in a complex system and on the long run the actual need of everybody, but: in a "gift economy" - everybody will share everything to everyone at every moment for any reason whatsoever, etc. And, for sure ! - the very concept of "structural violence" is a mind-fuck, a non-argument, a complete childish perspective. It is what outrage me the most with the socialists patterns: what they always propose is a immediate shit-load of violence (what they call prudently: the "transition") - that we should accept bu the promise that it will "ends wars and poverty", and make everybody "free" (in AR's terms: non-existent): so, if you know how to read between lines - it's a form of mutation of the "love-hate pathology", a truly narcissistic and immature pattern of behaviour, outcome of childhood in most (all) cases. The keyword is certainly: free - but the answer isn't necessarily (or limited to) capitalism, which is concrete terms, operationally, a system allowing a lot of waste and also the presence of a certain form of violence (not structural, haha, but surely psychological). The AR's version of capitalism is abstract, not concrete: it isn't equipped nor prepared to deal with the present technological issues and the new, emergent paradigms.

Same here ! And I'm pretty sure that I'm worse than you - in fact, I'm wicked to the point that I prefer publicize my stuff and, like if I was Achilles in the race against the tortoise - re-reading swiftly in order to clean up this mess before someone would notice that I was simply to much enthusiastic and wanted to post without any revision. Probably that the real reason is that I'm very highly gifted intellectually, since a recent study prove that geniuses are normally prone to procrastination ! NOT! But, for sure - I have to say that I can't stand this absolutely boring job to submit gently to the Grammar's goddess (which is like a tiny Frau professor with big boobs in a catholic elementary school): what is fun in writing is to experience the mind in action, to assist amazed to the birth of your own, always partially unconscious thoughts ("And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you" - which is very erotic, very exciting stuff) ! BTW - it is obviously the two reasons why I urgently need a secretary: the first is to handle the boring stuff; the second, to abuse of my tyrannical artist's fantaisies on her tight ass ! OMFG ! Just kidding.

This Hegelian-framed reflexion is quite astounding ! I mean, seriously: I had to re-read it many times in order to extract all the juice ! Only to be the troublemaker a little bit - I would say that there's nothing "irrational" per se, which means: the most common cases invoked when we're using that bogging term are usually highlighting a mind-fuck about something unknown; not identified nor assumed emotions, frustration, misinterpretation, etc.; a logical's default in the course of the conversation, but symbolically transformed into a perceived type of psychological agression; it can also be the expedient of self-closure, a psycho-rigid mind unable to allow the flow to go on and let a diversity of worldview to be established - this one pertaining mostly to the "rational kind", which is more than often "so sure" of its premises that he acts like godlike bulldozer. Here I'm certainly not transgressing the fundamentals of rationality: voluntarism, argumentation, self-knowledge, etc. - but the fact is that, in some "Hegelian fashion" (sorry with that it's like a pet subject for me), "irrationality" is logically caused by the predominance of a rational current. Never you'll see the irrational the calling or evaluating himself that way up: certainly he will be more inefficient on the long run, but at least he isn't troubled in the present the type of foggy inner dialog who's mainly paralyzing the course of the rational individual. What I love the most in the concept of "objectivity" originated from Ayn Rand is that it is clearly stated that everything, absolutely everything is objective, which means: there's nothing supernatural or non-conceivable, nothing "unnatural" or inherently meaningless - all events or thoughts means something, once put into their original context. But the fact is that she fucked up her own great and genuine concept by "choosing" to maintain the use of binary notions as: right/wrong, good/evil, rational/irrational, producer/looter, etc., - as if the "shameful" sides of these false dichotomy would be somehow excluded for the realm of reality. It's why I see the work of Stefan as a blessed expansion of Objectivism - since he's replacing things in their context: the childhood's history, mostly. All that to feel you this, SamuelS: your "irrational" debater is only an ordinary human being plagued with some phylogenetical deficiencies - and probably the best thing you can do is to put aside your own needs and expectations for a moment (if it's an available option for you), and try to size the troubling allegations of the person in her own, context/specific frame of reference. As I see it, rationality is an ordinal value - corresponding to the vertical bar, so being measured by progressing degrees of intensity, self-knowledge and awareness: all the way-long you're still a "rational" person, only situated at a different level of understanding and proactivity. This is the true meaning of the fundamental concept of objectivity: you cannot feign or faint it, nor escape it in any way whatsoever - so "being irrational" is being objective, only at a low-level of awareness.

I think it's a bit offending of your part to be so blunt - you should at least have refer me to somebody who is ! Like we says in America: "Nobody is splitting hairs in his own country". Are you Russian ?

Can you discriminate what matters the most to you in these 3,5 millions results ? Or perhaps should we infer than when you use that term, "virtuous" - you're simultaneously meaning everything that have been stated about that concept, at every epoch, in every milieu ? Example of discrimination: I, personally - don't like women who "keep their virtue": they're very boring in bed !

Always when I felt myself trap in the abyss of the emotional stuff (and the using axioms and definitions as self-defence) - I remember one the "Seven habits of highly successful people": "Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood" Which means: "Use empathic listening to be genuinely influenced by a person, which compels them to reciprocate the listening and take an open mind to being influenced by you. This creates an atmosphere of caring, and positive problem solving". If something gone wrong during the conversation, most of the time it is the result of the fact that someone's needs haven't been assessed or satisfied - and because an oral dialogue is really vivid, swift and implying that you're physically confronting your interlocutor, to feel ignored or dismissed, although it can seems momentarily "irrational", "over-sensitive" - it really something that frustrate a lot. Now, there's very interesting topics into the field of psychoanalysis where they links the adult's saneness or maturity with the ability to cope with frustration. As a baby, all your needs were immediately satisfied (it is the "primary narcissism" phase, frustration-free) ; then you grew up, and the first frustration happened when you were weaned from mother's womb, discovering that your mother was distinct you, also prone to frustration. The importing thing here is that this processus is often sabotaged by the fact that parents will splits into two delusional, dysfunctional categories: the lousy provider, and the narcissistic miser. For sure there can be any variants in-between this dichotomy, but the damages incurred remains the same: it refrains you to develop a sane understanding of human relationships and of an objective relation to the world, which results inevitably in: frustration. You'll have to work on your self-knowledge and lean how to identify this over-loaded frustration when it comes up, and quarantine it. For example, when your feels that you become non-objective or agressive in a discussion, use introspection and tells to yourself: "Dude, relax ! It is not because this discussion doesn't fit your anticipated expectations (or "X", which causes you intern, psycho-emotional pain) - that it's all bullshit ! All the contrary ! it may be a great, joyful chance to learn about something new, discover an interesting viewpoint, test your own standards, etc." At that point you can also turns yourself into an astute Socrates (my preferred strategy) and starts to giving birth to the minds of your opponents ! It could be very useful to assessed empathically the internal state or perceptions of your friend - which was the purpose of the habit quoted above: if you're not the one responsible for the slippages, you're only way to evaluate it is by mastering these two tools: introspection AND extrospection. There's also another conversational adjustment that is a bit more tricky or exhausting: your can simply mimic the incoherent attitude of your adversary, mirrors is eccentricity or the mere fallacies he's using in order to trick you. But it means that by acting like that you abandon the logic and the methodology to switch into a more psycho-emotional, either humorous or therapeutic conversational framework. The key is that you should be absolutely conscious of every of their different modulating states, switches, etc. - starting with your own frustration, which is the sane red light, the whistleblower warning you that there's something going wrong in the course of the conversation. OMFG - the call-in show is just beginning ! I should let you on this few tips, hoping it will be useful to you ! Ciao, dude !

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second. The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality. Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer. Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the “mixed,” moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or “extreme” subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)

Define "virtuous", please.

For sure, the need for a government agency is the only part of Objectivism that is criticizable ; but, in counterpart, - we have to understand why it was proposed to us as an "objective need" in the first place. The new positivists and other scientists are claiming that the role of the government was one of regulation, of moderation - ironically, in order to limit an organize the necessary uncontrollable drift of the market, which means: to objectify the economy and the human agency. Let's be serious: this point of view isn't completely flawed, since there will always be "loose cannon", sociopaths, eccentrics and narcissistic assholes that will prevent a marker to be autonomous and fluid. The fact is that that very same "blackguard", since they are humans and citizens - are also part of any government, any law's agency. The flaw in the Objectivist's view was this pure velleity to create an agency free of any misinterpretation, free of a decadent will, clinically originated from the exercice of power (Lord Acton) - to resume, free of humans, free of individuals who cannot legitimately be controlled, only debated. This invoked "objectivity" in terms of global management of an intricated system of existents can only be accomplished through a methodology, not by a domineering organization of any kind, overdetermining the free will of each individual. This objective methodology should be made absolutely available, in any time, any place - entirely disposable to any willful individual interested to improve is own conduct. We have to stop reasoning in term of old-school commonplaces, huge institutions who act concretely like dinosaurs: there's no "thaumaturge king", no "good shepherd", no "class" whose objective role would be to protect its people, like the carcinogenic clergy, or the so-called "revolutionary proletariat" - only individuals behaving in an adapted or incoherent manner. If an individual fails, it's no big deal ; if the URSS bankrupt, it's quite another thing. But, in order to resume - my argument is that we need to instaure a social system in which it would be possible to "think globally", to rather "act locally". The "stolen premise" of the government is that it pretend to have a large, clear vision of what's going on (which might be true formerly when people were all uneducated peasants) - to be the only instance capable to give a "truly" "objective" feedback on reality. Conversely, one of the systematic flaw of the market is to generate a narrow worldview, a methodology limited to the discretion of the individual. The earth must move towards an open-source environment. No government, no "private" individual. But, imagine: humans aren't enough evolved to cope psychosocially with the scarcity attached to every manifestation of "private property" - and now we ask them to renounce to their delusional, megalomaniac comfort, in order, over the long run, - to incommensurably improve their well-being ?