There is a gap and a deep gap between them, where many assume - for example - the revolutionary and the conservative - that behind the walls of this hypothetical world lies an object whose text corresponds to his behavior, a semi-perfect being, who speaks of nobility, weapons, courage, strength, and composure does not leave his hand, and that the revolutionary is striving for change, rebellion, and coup, and they really cannot part with the virtual world.
With this, I can say that these are truly hypothetical beings, living on hallucinations and promoting illusions - looking at their reality - you hardly find one of them agrees with his saying his work, even these writings are an expression of a deficiency, whether subjective or deficiency that societies suffer.
Personally, I am very pessimistic, completely succumbing to the mockery of our ability to change, a very skeptical, hopeless man, and refuting my reasons for this is not easy.
However, let's look at the great novelists who portrayed the bitter reality in the past, such as Yevgeny Zamyatin, George Orwell, and Aldous Huxley, for they were the ones whose pencils drew the horrors that gripped the modern world, the world of modernity, the world of producers and soldiers obsessed with order and discipline, these novelists were of the highest degrees. Preparedness and caution, and they hoped that their visions would shock their brothers so that they would shake off the heedlessness of the sheep walking in submission towards the altar, so their message was that this is the world that your calm will lead to unless you rebel. These people believe in tailors on demand, but I envision a world without tailors. The future is in such a world that it makes itself, a future shaped according to the saying "do it yourself." I basically think that one cannot change anything related to societal transformations. Unfortunately, it will not change anything; I never mind turning back because I do not believe it is possible to turn back the clock. If someone asks: "What can be done?" The question loses its meaning and its validity through the unequivocal answer "no one" to the next question: "Who will do what can be done?" There are no actors except technology or religion, technology blinds and misleads. Mother of religion, God symbolizes the failures and helplessness of mankind.
I can see the insignificance of hope, so is there a truth about someone stubborn and naive enough to keep sticking to him? Describing things as many of us do does not lead to changing them; mere will is not enough, and looking ahead does not mean that we can prevent it from happening.
Power as "the ability to do things" has now evaporated, just as politics no longer has the meaning of being "the ability to choose the things to be done." Hence the individual and the individual process. Individuals are the ones who rule, but they nevertheless feel helpless and lost.
0 Comments