... The Iroques laugh when you talk to them of submission to kings; for they cannot reconcile the idea of Submission with the dignity of man. Each individual is a sovereign in his own mind; and as he conceives he derives his freedom from the Great Spirit alone he cannot be induced to acknowledge any other power. ... John Long, Voyages and Travels of an Indian interpreter and trader, 1791

... We find it hard to accept that king Agamemnon, or any other hero of the Iliad, while behaving as a dominant can be a decorated and armed standing chimpanzee, or any other decorated and "stately" animal. We oppose this idea not because it is not true, but because, if we accept that it is true the whole system of perceptions built through centuries of domination systems shall collapse. And then, if this reality reveals to us, we will start to see as standing chimpanzees decorated with ornaments, many more of the dominants and important ones through centuries, those of who we have been taught to acknowledge as superior, to admire them, applaud, praise, and to follow the urge to be like them. ... Andreas Georgiou, The perfect State: The night of the reptiles, 1987

D. Private autarky against the social bond


Private autarky appears to be a necessary pursuit for almost all modern humans. We match our well-being and classify it accordingly to the magnitude of our self-sufficiency. Our private house, our private transportation, our private nursing for the kids and the elderly, our private medical care, our private education, our private entertainment, our private vacation house, and this list may go on forever.

Private autarky allows us to protect ourselves from the disturbance that other people put on us, meaning, of the disturbance of the continuous and mandatory negotiation and coexistence with other people. Thus, the way for the achievement of either this or that degree of private autarky is the acquisition, accordingly, of the necessary amounts of money.

Private autarky imposes that personal and social relations are adjusted through a network of orders given accordingly to the position each one holds at the financial hierarchy. Having been taught to comprehend any negotiation upon daily or life issues as a tiring matter, we have almost completely attributed the arrangement of such issues to each one’s ability in summing amounts of money that will be spent in order for one to have the right to give orders for obtaining goods and cares.

Inside a social environment of hierarchical transmission of orders, the social bond has lost its practical meaning -that of mutual respect between persons, which respect is constantly reaffirmed through speech. Social bond, in this case, is established upon an abstract context of a desired private autarky and financial prosperity, while requiring the concealment behind the hallucination of a prospering world, of another world that is been destroyed.

From the autarky of the master to the autarky of the worker

Private autarky occurred as an evolutionary consequence of slavery. The human-master no-longer had to negotiate and cooperate since in order to reach his needs he simply had to order the human-slave. On the other hand the human-slave no-longer needed to be creative, inventive and cooperative since he should only do what orders say and behave inside the frame set by his human-master.

Up to the point that slavery was invented, negotiation, exchange and cooperation had been the fields in which human speech and reason developed while -at the same time- developing humanity itself.
The invention of slavery interrupted, or even intervened in a violent way -literally and figuratively- to humanity’s evolution and cultural course. The achievement of cooperation, the abilities it offers and it’s demands at the level of reason, grants ever since its place to a complex system of authority and obedience, private autarky and dependency.

The social state, that -relatively recently- occurred as a result of the continuous revolts of the enslaved workers who found themselves submitted to the capitalists and restricted from any kind of self-sufficiency, is now been demolished; in front of their unsuspecting class inheritors, who -by now- as their primary wary they care to ensure a least equivalent of their masters’ autarky.

Any kind of private autarky of the workers, even of some business people, besides being fictitious since it is depended from the money which is under the control of their masters -the same way like the means of production, the State, the land, the communications, the technologies, science, patents and so on-, constitutes the successful mechanism by which workers become trapped in the system formed to serve their masters.

Private autarky exists -both in theoretical and practical level- at the very opposite of the interests of the subjugated, who as a primary wary should have the formulation of the terms of a social bond serving the creation of an enjoyable public and social environment, based on the tools of negotiation and the use of reason.