: Correct, as in atoms within a lump of coal.
More like blades of grass, independant and whole anywhere they grow but together you can call them a lawn.
: to escape scoeity within society, is to bring about an authoritarian state, that gaurantees the indentity of teh atomised individuals within that society.
When society is already an authoritarian state then you concede that it is simply a power play. In this context, without a right answer. Hence we must consider what mankind is, not just say "hey, just accept it - if you dont you just become a tyrant"
: Liberal subject requires such impediements in order to function within society, and so in creating one model of teh self, it also creates a model of repression.
The key to it is for the liberal individual to make a value judgement and ask if the impediment will be given his sanction (ie his participation). Hence the tribe (in the form of its leading clique), where exile is death, has the most horrendous power to subjugate others and history has been a move away from the tribe toward individuality and increasingly chosen participation. You have more choice now, the pressure to be submerged is still great but you can survive individuated.
: 1:I would suggest that the money form requires no such effort, merely the aquisition of money.
Which can only be done by exchanging mutually agreed upon value for it. Unless your in the federal reserve when mass theft will do.
: 2:That by privatising property, and privatising self we become alien to ourselves and our world, and experience it only ever as inhibition.
There is more alienation to be had amongst others than you could ever impose upon yourself. There is more alienation to be felt regarding the world when your view of it is second hand than when it is owned and known by you. There is more inhibition to be had when submerged into 'society' than when individuated from it.
: No, because you cannot control the market, can you? When it crashes, when the price of your commodity goes down through no-action of your own, the market exists without us, and exerts a power over us- the Invisble hand will see us right, we pray...
If you participate in a cricket match (your fave analogy) and lose it may not be through you, but your participation is chosen and voluntary. Likewise the market. If it fails it may not be 'your fault' but having chosen to invest in it, it is your responsibility to deal with your personal loss. Despite this risk, and despite heavy artificial intereventions (of force) the global economy continues to grow in abundance of wealth. Communes develop where people choose not to be in the 'market'. Dictatorships develop (or grow insiduously ala USA) where powermongers desire control of the wealth of others.
: yes, we have a 'nature', we have a potentiality, I think socialism is imminant (potential) within human nature, and has shown itself so throughout history.
I doubt socialism to be a potential in more than the smallest homogenous groups. Hence if it is to succeed it requries slow growth by example, there will never be a world revolution. History shows a move away from the open collectivism of pre historic man, through tyrranies of the strong (alpha males to empires), tyrranies of the many (democracy) and the next stage would appear to be either a reversal to tyrrany (pendulums eh!) or a move to a more devolved mode of political power - devolved in terms of numbers and power.