INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

Introduction
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it
may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve
a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but
only after passing through a long and very painful period
of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will
be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying
the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of
dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still
be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more
disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is
to break down it had best break down sooner rather than
later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively
gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict
any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the
measures that those who hate the industrial system should
take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against
that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of
the negative developments that have grown out of the
industrial-technological system. Other such developments
we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not
mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For
example, since there are well-developed environmental
and wilderness movements, we have written very little
about environmental degradation or the destruction of
wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly
important.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply
troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society
in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th
century leftism could have been practically identified with
socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not
clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak
of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists,
collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and
disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But
not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good
deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem
to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is
indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving
force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our
discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We
leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early
20th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of
modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism;
but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum
of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred,
1
etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such
feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom
he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings
or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among
minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the
minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities
and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The
terms “negro”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an
African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick”
were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or
“fellow”. The negative connotations have been attached
to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word
“pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion”. Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid
saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the
word “primitive” by “nonliterate”. They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply
that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely
point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghettodweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not
even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its
stronghold among university professors, who have secure
employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority
of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to
upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the
problems of groups that have an image of being weak
(women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel
that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to
themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they
identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest
that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are
nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and
as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image
of being strong, good and successful. They hate America,
they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they
hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating
the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real
motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but
where these same faults appear in socialist countries or
in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them,
or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly
exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western
civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He
hates America and the West because they are strong and
successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role
in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antiindividualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve
every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs
for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person
who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve
his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is
antagohistic to the concept of competition because, deep
inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or
else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational
control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was
to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason,
science, objective reality and to insist that everything is
culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and
about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can
be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically
analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.
They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for
hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates
science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs
as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false
(i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority
run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of
some things as successful or superior and other things as
failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many
leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of
IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations
of human abilities or behavior because such explanations
tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to
others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame
for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
“inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has
not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose
feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a
bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of
person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still
conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,
and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for
that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he
2
cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel
strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass
movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics.
Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they
intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc.
These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use
them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER
masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated
by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle
does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type.
But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main
motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a
component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim
to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make
sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic
terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at
least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who
think that affirmative action discriminates against them.
But leftist activists do not take such an approach because
it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black
people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve
as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm
black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward
the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide
themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend
to be an accurate description of everyone who might be
considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think
and act as society demands. A person is said to be well
socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of
his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that
society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are
over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are
not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that
no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way.
For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet
almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other,
whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and
act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order
to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive
themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a
nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a
sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the
most important means by which our society socializes
children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or
speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is
overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible
to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF.
Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations
than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty
behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break
traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they
say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to
get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates
in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt,
thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under
the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is
kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running
on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and
powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties
that human being inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their
oversocialization is of great importance in determining
the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the
upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3]
constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off
his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against
the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the
goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted
moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples:
racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people,
peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom
of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally,
the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty
of society to take care of the individual. All these have
been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its
middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed
in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream
communications media and the educational system. Lef3
tists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually
do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth)
that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in
rebellion aginst it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for
improved education in black schools and more money for
such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they
regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the
black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white
people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want
is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But
in what does this preservation of African American culture
consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church
or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists
of the oversocialized type want to make the black man
conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make
him study technical subjects, become an executive or a
scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove
that black people are as good as white. They want to make
black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of
the industrial- technological system. The system couldn’t
care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind
of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long
as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the
status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and
so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the
system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the
oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some
oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against
one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words,
by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because
they are oversocialized these restraints have been more
confining for them than for others; hence their need to
break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion
in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence
they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to
the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The
real situation is complex, and anything like a complete
description of it would take several volumes even if the
necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies
in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left.
Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are
widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We
are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how
to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
THE POWER PROCESS
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the power process.
This is closely related to the need for power (which is
widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The
power process has four elements. The three most clearcut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal.
(Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires
effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of
his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define
and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can
have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man
has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he
will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he
may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true
of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain
their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no
need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This
shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the
physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But
the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort.
Hence his boredom and demoralization.
36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death
if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if
non-attainment of the goals is compatible with survival.
Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in
defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
SURROGATE ACTIVITIES
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and
demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead
of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to
marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished.
When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy
4
their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for
themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals
with the same energy and emotional involvement that
they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire
had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats
a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy
in hunting, though they certainly didn’t need the meat;
other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
39. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate
an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that
people set up for themselves merely in order to have some
goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the qake
of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal.
Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time
and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If
he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying
his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use
his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did
not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s
pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito’s studies
in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity,
since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend
his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have
felt deprived because he didn’t know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand
the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence
were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they
passed their lives without ever having a relationship with
a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a
surrogate activity.)
40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort
is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough
to go through a training program to acquire some petty
technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the
very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most
of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes
care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted,
but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it
is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate
activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation,
climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and
material goods far beyond the point at which they cease
to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for
the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who
work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not
always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people
they may be motivated in part by needs other than the
need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be
motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation
by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by
hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example,
the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfillment” they get from their work is more important than
the money and prestige they earn.
41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are
less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals
that people would want to attain even if their need for the
power process were already fulfilled). One indication of
this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who
are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly
strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The
long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther
and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities
will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the “mundane” business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our
society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs
has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our
society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense
social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great
deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.
AUTONOMY
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not
be necessary for every individual. But most people need
a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on
their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this
initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is
usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group.
Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that
goal, their need for the power process will be served. But
if they work under rigid orders handed down from above
that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be
served. The same is true when decisions are made on a
collective basis if the group making the collective decision
is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant.
[5]
43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little
need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or
they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are
unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a
purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier,
who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills
that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his
superiors).
5
44. But for most people it is through the power process
— having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and
attaining the goal — that self-esteem, self-confidence and
a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have
adequate opportunity to go through the power process the
consequences are (depending on the individual and on
the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism,
depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or
child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders. etc. [6]
SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any
society, but in modern industrial society they are present
on a massive scale. We aren’t the first to mention that the
world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is
not normal for human societies. There is good reason to
believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and
frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life
than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was
common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality
was fairly common among some of the American Indian
tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the
kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples
than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems
of modern society to the fact that that society requires
people to live under conditions radically different from
those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior
that the human race developed while living under the
earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already
written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly
experience the power process as the most important of
the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects
people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern
industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social
change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and
aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and
the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population
that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology
has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology
exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a
variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios,
motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by
the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the
devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no
conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which
usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework
and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it
is human society that dominates nature rather than the
other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no
stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the
decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid,
drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a
society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects
of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent
implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together
traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration
of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact
that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals
to move to new locations, separating themselves from
their communities. Beyond that, a technological society
HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is
to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s
loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to
a smallscale community, because if the internal loyalties
of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to
the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist
to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism”
or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done
a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to
loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at
Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can
tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social
problems. But we do not believe tbey are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered
from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban
areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive
factor.
6
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by
choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet
they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society
was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and
fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at
old age he might be working at a regular job and living
in an ordered community with effective law enforcement.
This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs
in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem
to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident
tone, quite unlike that of today’s society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has
the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on
him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense
(also largely justified) that he created change himself, by
his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land
of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his
own effort. In those days an entire county might have only
a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is.
Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a
relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered
community. One may well question whether the creation
of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it
satisfied the pioneer’s need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack
of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today’s industrial society.
We contend that the most important cause of social and
psychological problems in modern society is the fact that
people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don’t mean to say that
modern society is the only one in which the power process
has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater
or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its
recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.
DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN
MODERN SOCIETY
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those
drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those
that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort;
(3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter
how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more
drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human drives
tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the
second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially
created drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally
fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the
cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange
for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed
into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether
the effort needed to hold a job is “minimal”; but usually,
in lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required
is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you
are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in
the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert
yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any
autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process
is not well served.)
62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual. [10] But, except for people who
have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy
adequately the need for the power process.
63. So certain artificial needs have been created that
fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that
their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It
requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy
these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see
paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for
the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial
needs created by the advertising and marketing industry
[11], and through surrogate activities.
64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatediy in the writings of
the social critics of the second half of the 20th century is
the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in
modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by
other names such as “anomic” or “middle-class vacuity.”)
We suggest that the so-called “identity crisis” is actually
a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to
a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism
is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society is the
search for “fulfillment.” But we think that for the majority
of people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that
is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy
the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That
need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have
some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love,
status, revenge, etc.
65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning
money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of
the system in some other way, most people are not in a po7
sition to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else’s employee and, as we pointed out
in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they
are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even most
people who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business
persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by
excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of
our extremely complex society. A large portion of small
business today operates on the franchise system. It was
reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that
many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go
along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes
from small business many of the people who most need
autonomy.
66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what
they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves
is done more and more along channels laid down by the
system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system
provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord
with rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance
of success.
67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society
through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted
because of those human drives that fall into group 3:
the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter
how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the
need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by
other people; we have no control over these decisions and
usually we do not even know the people who make them.
(“We live in a world in which relatively few people —
maybe 500 or 1,000 — make the important decisions”,
Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives
depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power
plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is
allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into
our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is;
whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions
made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position
to secure themselves against these threats to more [than]
a very limited extent. The individual’s search for security
is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.
68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically
less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less,
not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for
human beings. But psychological security does not closely
correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive
man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight
in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means
helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many
things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing
taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt
his way of life.
69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against
some of the things that threaten him; disease for example.
But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of
the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it is the fault
of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the
modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not
the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other
persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable
to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated
and angry.
70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a
member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that
are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to
influence them. So modern man’s drive for security tends
to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter
etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security.
(The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it
does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition
of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)
71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that
are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into
group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even
permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one
may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel
slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with
the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may
want to do one’s work in a different way, but usually one
can work only according to the rules laid down by one’s
employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is
strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and
thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.
72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning
of the system we can generally do what we please. We
can believe in any religion (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can
go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice
“safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is
UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules
and not only by the government. Control is often exer8
cised through indirect coercion or through psychological
pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than
the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large
organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not
limited to “commercials” and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda
by the people who make it. For instance, the content of
entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law
that says we have to go to work every day and follow our
employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us
from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from
going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is
very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners.
Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.
74. We suggest that modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The “mid-lffe crisis” also is such a symptom.
So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly
common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages.
The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on
to the next stage. A young man goes through the power
process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for
fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In
young women the process is more complex, with greater
emphasis on social power; we won’t discuss that here.)
This phase having been successfully passed through, the
young man has no reluctance about settling down to the
responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because
they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfillment.” We
suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power process — with real goals instead
of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the
power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and
he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long)
and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are
disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and
death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend
trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance
and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through
the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It
is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for
practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but
the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his
body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the
man whose need for the power process has been satisfied
during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of
that life.
76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, “Society must find a way to give people
the opportunity to go through the power process.” This
won’t work for those who need autonomy in the power
process. For such people the value of the opportunity is
destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them.
What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities
it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must
get off that leash.
HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST
77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in
their response to modern society.
78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength
of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for
power may have relatively little need to go through the
power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who
would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old
South. (We don’t mean to sneer at the “plantation darkies”
of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were
NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people
who ARE content with servitude.)
79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in
pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong
drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that
game.
80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and
marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even
if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy
their constant craving for the the shiny new toys that the
marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is
large, and their cravings are frustrated.
81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who
aren’t interested in money. Material acquisition does not
serve their need for the power process.
82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough
money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but
only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process.
But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully
satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of following orders)
and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g., security,
aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that the desire
9
for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it’s not that
simple. [11]
83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power
by identifying themselves with a powerful organization
or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power
joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as
his own, then works toward those goals. When some of
the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the
attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification
with the movement or organization) as if he had gone
through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses
it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was
an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S.
invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification
with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously.
Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the
same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological
movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need
for power.
84. Another way in which people satisfy their need
for the power process is through surrogate activities. As
we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity
is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal
that the individual pursues for the sake of the “fulfillment” that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because
he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is
no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society
devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or
stamp-collecting. Some people are more “other-directed”
than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people
around them treat it as important or because society tells
them it is important. That is why some people get very
serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports,
or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas
others who are more clear-sighted never see these things
as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and
consequently never attach enough importance to them to
satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only
remains to point out that in many cases a person’s way of
earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE
surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity
is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people)
social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them
want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status
they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate
activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent
forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the
most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be
largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that
it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a
moment (paragraphs 87-92).
85. In this section we have explained how many people
in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for
the majority of people the need for the power process is
not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an
insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly “hooked” on
a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with
a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are
not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In
the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization,
which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and
the necessity of restraining too many impulses.
86. But even if most people in industrial-technological
society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed
to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we
consider it demeaning to fulfill one’s need for the power
process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of
real goals.
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important
examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim
that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these
can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work
on highly specialized problems that are not the object of
any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a
chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious
about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity.
Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification
of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest
only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist
and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to
obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about
isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles.
Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had
led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of
a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested
10
in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about
isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to
put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of
time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t
stand up.
88. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work
any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other
areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities.
Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about
their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had
an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear
power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire
to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get
emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was
such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the
H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is
very much open to question whether nuclear power plants
actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity
outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly
his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not
from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal
fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to
practical use.
89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor
a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through
the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to
solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal
(solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity
because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get
out of the work itself.
90. Of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play
a role for many scientists. Money and status for example.
Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an
insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may
provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt
the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general
population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and
marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE
surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.
91. Also, science and technology constitute a power
mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need
for power through identification with this mass movement
(see paragraph 83).
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard
to the real welfare of the human race or to any other
standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the
scientists and of the government of ficials and corporation
executives who provide the funds for research.
THE NATURE OF FREEDOM
93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological
society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it
from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But, because “freedom” is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind
of freedom we are concerned with.
94. By “freedom” we mean the opportunity to go
through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference,
manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from
any large organization. Freedom means being in control
(either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group)
of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there
may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power
to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does
not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised.
It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).
95. It is said that we live in a free society because
we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed
rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The
degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England
were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian
Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading
about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does.
In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms
for enforcing the ruler’s will: There were no modern, wellorganized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.
96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for
example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t
mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping
those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the
press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control
of large organizations that are integrated into the system.
Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such
way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast
volume of material put out by the media, hence it will
have no practical effect. To make an impression on society
with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we
had never done anything violent and had submitted the
present writings to a publisher, they probably would not
have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and
11
published, they probably would not have attracted many
readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment
put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even ff
these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as
their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which
the media expose them. In order to get our message before
the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.
97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but
they do not serve to guarantee much more than what
might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a “free” man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms
that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine
more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois’s
“free” man has economic freedom because that promotes
growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because
public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders;
he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the
whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This
was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people
deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress
(progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois
thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere
means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, “Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century,” page 202, explains
the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min:
“An individual is granted rights because he is a member
of society and his community life requires such rights. By
community Hu meant the whole society of the nation.”
And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum
Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party
in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the
state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else
prescribes? FC’s conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble
with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the
needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people
who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which
the theories are imposed.
98. One more point to be made in this section: It should
not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just
because he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in
part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people’s ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention
than by their real needs. For example, it’s likely that many
leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most
people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a
heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY
99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable
events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular
component that consists of long-term historical trends.
Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.
100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that
affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that
change will almost always be transitory — the trend will
soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society
rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later
the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The
level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution
of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a
SMALL change in the society won’t be enough.) If a small
change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction
in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is
not altered by only pushed a step ahead.
101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend
were not stable with respect to small changes, it would
wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at
all.
102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is
sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other
words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can’t permanently change any important
part without changing all other parts as well.
103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is
large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then
the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have
passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes
through the same change will be like to experience similar
consequences.)
104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot
be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new
form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to
function as it was designed to do.
105. The third and fourth principles result from the
complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment
and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the
environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and
effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.
106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and
rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not
under rational human control.
12
107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other
four.
108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction
in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any
case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting
change in the direction of development of any important
aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is
required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the
second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the
third principle changes occur that were never expected
or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle,
when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.
109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American “Revolution” was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform.
The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do
so. They only freed the development of American society
from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political
reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed
American political culture along its natural direction of
development. British society, of which American society
was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the
direction of representative democracy. And prior to the
War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in
the colonial assemblies. The political system established
by the Constitution was modeled on the British system
and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to
be sure — there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took
a very important step. But it was a step along the road that
English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof
is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up
with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers
had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of
Independence, our way of lffe today would not have been
significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament
and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.
No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not
a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration
of them.
110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying
the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language
that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to
them can be found. So we present these principles not as
inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas
about the future of society. The principles should be borne
constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conciusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one’s thinking and retain the conclusion only if one
has good, solid reasons for doing so.
INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE
REFORMED
111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system
in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent
tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high
cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence
any change designed to protect freedom from technology
would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either
would be a transitory one — soon swamped by the tide
of history — or, if large enough to be permanent would
alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first
and second principles. Moreover, since society would be
altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance
(third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large
enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom
would not be initiated because it would be realized that
they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at
reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes
large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated,
they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to
accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of
the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not
reformers.
112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest
naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that
people who make such suggestions seldom propose any
practical means by which the new form of society could
be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once
established, it either would collapse or would give results
very different from those expected.
113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly
improbable that any way of changing society could be
found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological
progress are incompatible.
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS
UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
114. As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern
man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This
is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant
bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people
13
have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production
would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be
run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt
the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their
discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom
could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary
for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The
result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations
will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools
that make us want to do what the system requires of us.
(Propaganda [14], educational techniques, “mental health” programs, etc.)
115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways
that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of
human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists,
mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without
them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in
these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being
to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in
study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples
the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among
the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in
active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of thing that boys
like. But in our society children are pushed into studying
technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
116. Because of the constant pressure that the system
exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth gang
members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various
kinds.
117. In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally
cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation
of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a
society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE
TO be made that affect very large numbers of people.
When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each
of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a onemillionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists,
but even when the public votes on a decision the number
of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one
individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals
are unable to influence measurably the major decisions
that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to
make people WANT the decisions that have been made for
them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
118. Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with
and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities,
computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations
far way. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may
contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy
human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to
be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may
pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the
fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It
is the fault of technology, because the system is guided
not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course
the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally
speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the
advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being.
For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it
attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can
CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too
many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant
pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs
of the system. To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda
about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus
of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask
whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the
bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate.
When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical
advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks
whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in
this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must
bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human
needs were put before technical necessity there would be
economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse.
The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined
largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in
accord with the needs of the system and does so without
showing signs of stress.
120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and
for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke.
For example, one company, instead of having each of its
employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had
each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed
to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some
companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually
can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case
employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals
14
— their “autonomous” efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward
their employer’s goals, such as the survival and growth of
the company. Any company would soon go out of business
if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in
any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not
possible for most individuals or small groups to have much
autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business
owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from
the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by
the fact that he must fit into the economic system and
conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone
develops a new technology, the small- business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not,
in order to remain competitive.
THE ’BAD’ PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ’GOOD’ PARTS
121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be
reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology
is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on
one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on
progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science
and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available
only by a technologically progressive, economically rich
society. Clearly you can’t have much Progress in medicine
without the whole technological system and everything
that goes with it.
122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure
for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency
to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as
well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for
diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout
the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled
through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with
many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by
genetic degradation of the population. The only solution
will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance,
or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical
opinions), but a manufactured product.
123. If you think that big government interferes in your
life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic
engineering of human beings, because the consequences
of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
[19]
124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk
about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not
serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress;
it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of
regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would
decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical”. and others were not, so that in effect
they would be imposing their own values on the genetic
constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of
ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the
majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only
code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be
one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human
beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever
be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for
long, because the temptation presented by the immense
power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially
since to the majority of people many of its applications
will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating
physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities
they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways
consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological
system. [20]
TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL
SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR
FREEDOOM
125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise
between technology and freedom, because technology is
by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises.
Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the
outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is
more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands
a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The
powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half
of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to
give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands
another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and
so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the
weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his
land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and
freedom.
126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful
social force than the aspiration for freedom.
127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously
later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A
walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at
his own pace without observing any traffic regulations,
and was independent of technological support-systems.
When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to
increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from
the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he
15
didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an
automobile could travel much faster and farther than a
walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport
soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly
man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became
numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas,
one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace;
one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by
various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly
payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities
has changed in such a way that the majority of people
no longer live within walking distance of their place of
employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for
transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their
own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s
freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor
traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along
the highway. (Note this important point that we have just
illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a
new item of technology is introduced as an option that an
individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually
find themselves FORCED to use it.)
128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance
communications... how could one argue against any of
these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would
have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no
disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76,
all these technical advances taken together have created a
world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his
own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends,
but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he
as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same
process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction
of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease.
It does no apparent harm and prevents.much suffering.
Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or
whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful
social force is that, within the context of a given society,
technological progress marches in only one direction; it
can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has
been introduced, people usually become dependent on it,
so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only
do people become dependent as individuals on a new item
of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to
the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction,
toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly
forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can
never take a step back — short of the overthrow of the
whole technological system.
130. TechnoIogy advances with great rapidity and
threatens freedom at many different points at the same
time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda
and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering,
invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.). To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long and difficult social struggle.
Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by
the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with
which they develop, hence they become apathetic and no
longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would
be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the
technological system as a whole; but that is revolution,
not reform.
131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to
describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their
surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between
their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in
the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations
do not hesitate to use propaganda[14] or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends.
Corporations and government agencies, when they find it
useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement
agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent
persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to r

Adoro o world design desse jogo, o sentimento de descobrir passagens secretas que levam de volta para Firelink é ótimo, porem o jogo conta demais com essas passagens secretas oq faz com que acabemos tendo que passar muito tempo andando em áreas já exploradas devido ao warp limitado. O combate é bem fraco devido a sua simplicidade extrema, penso isso pois eu não me vi obrigado a usar nada além de um escudo e espada reta para terminar o jogo, não usei uma resina ou bomba sequer. Em contra ponto ao world design, o level design decai de forma assustadora e se torna o maior problema do jogo, lugares como Tomb of Giants, Lost Izalith e Crystal Cave parecem inacabados (até pq Lost Izalith de fato é). Os bosses em geral são fracos eu nem um pouco memoráveis eu consigo me lembrar de uns 10 bosses e apenas uns 4 são de fato bons. A história é boa e seu impacto no mundo não é descartável, porem ela não salva a obra, afinal isso é um jogo e não um livro. Tanto falam da dificuldade de Dark Souls e novamente sou obrigado a falar que ela é artificial nos poucos momentos que de fato existe, indo contra todos os memes e ilusões criados pela fandom não é necessário mais de 4 tentativas e nem decorar o moveset dos bosses para derrota-los; acredito que a maior dificuldade se encontra antes de chegar neles, o enorme dano que os inimigos posteriores dão faz com que o jogador tenha que jogar de forma cautelosa mesmo estando níveis acima do recomendado. Gosto bastante do senso de mistério que o jogo tem, acabar descobrindo uma arma secreta fazendo algo idiota sempre é divertido. Para não deixar passar batido, isso é um remaster que não corrigiu quase nenhum bug, acredito inclusive que de todos os Dark Souls esse seja o que mais teve bugs. Todos os problemas se tornam ainda mais graves após saber que os desenvolvedores tiveram uma oportunidade de arrumar o jogo. Concluindo, Dark Souls sem dúvidas revolucionou o mundo dos jogos porem continua tendo problemas que foram renegados pela From Software em seu remaster.

O verdadeiro Dark Souls, e digo mais, um jogo necessário para o desenvolvimento de um ser humano. Aqui aprendemos que o mundo não é um grande arco-íris, é um lugar sujo e cruel que não quer saber o quanto você é durão, vai colocar você de joelhos e você ficará de joelhos para sempre se você deixar. Você, eu, ninguem vai bater tão duro quanto a vida, mas não se trata de bater duro, se trata de quanto você aguenta apanhar e seguir em frente, o quanto você é capaz de tentar e continuar tentando! É assim que se consegue vencer!