Politics and ontology
Rationality and autonomy
Autonomy
Property

Politics and ontology
    The political interrogation - what to do ? - is inextricably related to the ontological question - what is existence ? All human activity is necessarily political as it is an inevitable creation of a way of doing. And it is consequently ontological as a practical assertion-creation of a meaning-direction of existence in and by existence.
    Outside of any conscience, creation, reflexion or theoretic clarification, existence - "reality" - is essentially a political-ontological creation-production-activity, a social construction of which politics is the determining term as it is the practical-efficient side of this creation. All societies establish, create their own world. Its the specific organization - meaning and institution - of a society which poses and defines for example what, for a considered society, is “information”, what is “noise” et what is nothing at all; or the “ relevance”, the “weight”, the “value” and the “meaning” of “information”; or the “program” of  elaboration of, and response to” a given “information”, etc. Every society is a construction, a constitution, a creation of a world, of its own world. Its own identity is nothing but this world it creates et the world, “reality” and the first natural stratum only exist for society in and by this creation.
    This creation-activity is not absolute; it cannot transgress nor ignore the laws of physics, it erects itself upon this laws, on the first natural stratum, but it establishes new laws, its laws. The constraints imposed by the physical world to the organization of the living being give us an essential part of our comprehension of this organization. But what the physical world as such insurmountably imposes or forbids to society - and therefore, to all societies - is entirely trivial and doesn’t teach us anything. The impossible and the obligatory do not exhaust the expanse of the possible in human political-ontological creation-activity.
Rationality and autonomy
    The project of autonomy supports itself theoreticaly on full rationality from which it is inseparable - and not the “rationality” of scientism or “Reason”. True rationality is above all consciousness of the non-coherence, of the limits and of the inevitable lacunarities of rationality vis-a-vis of reality, explicit and deliberated confrontation with the abyss of meaning which is existence and consequently opening of indefinite and limitless questioning, without respite. The project of autonomy is the practical-political side of this limitless questioning. Rationality is not an absolute ontological justification of the project of autonomy or of an illusory ineluctability of an autonomous society. It is an anti-basis, a non-ontology, a foundation on the vacuum inevitably left by the limits of rationality and not on the vacuum of an absolute pseudo-nothingness, which is not the negation of theology but simply a negative theology.
    In front of the nonexistence of any total or absolute knowledge, of any theological revelation, the political-ontological question and, therefore, creation-activity cannot receive a legitimate transcendental closure. In addition, the determinations of the social-historic are for the social-historic neither decisive, nor indifferent, the impossible and the obligatory, far from exhausting its field, leave the essential out of their reach. No ontological or rational “truth”, no natural determination constrains men to live in one way and not the other. The activity of men is creation of a meaning-direction which exceeds rationality. Any practical and theoretical answer is effectively immanent; rationality and the project of autonomy are the emergence of an opposition to any immanent closure. The - respectively theoretic and practical-political - political-ontological non-response of rationality and the project of autonomy are the opening of limitless and indefinite questioning and suppression of the mystical and mythical unity of theocratic society.
Autonomy
    The project of autonomy supports itself on the deficit of meaning of the world and does not seek to fill it. It is the institution of a social framework - material conditions - which opens a limitless and indefinite practical questioning, because this questioning can only be mutilated if it is satisfied only to be theoretic. It is the rational project of the framework and not of the global content, of the cultural ensemble which are necessarily creation beyond rationality, opening of a voluntarily indefinite possible and finally autonomous otherness. It is the project of an explicit, direct and institutional political-ontological immanence.
    Individual, intersubjective and social-historic freedoms are reciprocally inherent and imply themselves circularly but the determining and revolutionarily decisive instance is the social-historic, collective-anonymous, human-impersonal, institutional, material, concrete, practical, legislative, organizational dimension. The individual is nothing but society. In total absence of society the individual’s fate is death or inhumanity. Otherness is inseparable from individual ipseity. The social-historic is global otherness. An individual’s autonomy is undissociable from the autonomy of others; full individual autonomy is necessarily social; to aim integral individual autonomy is to aim autonomous otherness, beyond oneself and one’s intersubjective relations. The personal freedom is thus impossible apart from social freedom. The specificity of individual - an autonomous relation with one’s unconscious - and intersubjective freedoms is residual. The monadic phantasm - to isolate individual and intersubjective freedoms from social-historic freedom - is in fact an ideological, political, negation of the project of social-historic autonomy. On the other hand, social-historic freedom considered separately ? the revolutionary seizure of power - is not a negation of individual and intersubjective freedoms; it establishes the political conditions of their accomplishment. Thus when we employ the term freedom - or autonomy - without addition we exclusively mean freedom as specifically a social-historic.
    In the same way, the imaginary and the institution of a society are correlated but the institution is the decisive revolutionary moment.
    The fight for freedom is consequently above all a combat for a free society - a society where activity and consequently the mode of property offer to individuals the greatest possible freedom; a society where the totality of social institutions are determined explicitly and directly by all so as not to harm neither social autonomy, nor individual autonomy.
    To render impossible all that exists independently of individuals. To transform general interest into particular interest and particular interest into general interest. To playfully build reality in a classless society. To transform the law of offer and demand in a game of needs, desires and capacities. To appropriate the material means of life for purposes of individual and collective free use. To establish direct democracy. Here are the tasks  the antitheocratic counsels, the weapon of self-emancipation created by the historical movement of autonomy.
Property
    From the revolutionary point of view, the practical-institutional-collective side of freedom is central, consequently property is the central revolutionary and political question. Property to the fullest extent possible of social appropriation of reality, i.e. the global mode of sharing of and participation in the social appropriation - appropriation in production, consumption, of objects, means, places, beings, life - is the core of social political-ontological activity. Capitalism, the state, hierarchy, the separation between politics and economy, theocratic inclusivity and exclusivity, totalitarianism, democracy, the councils are modes of property or modes of social appropriation. Radical critique is thus above all a critique of the alienation of the possibility of appropriating reality in an autonomous manner in theocratic societies.
    In raising their reign on the ruins of the monarchical world, the capitalists managed to preserve, behind the modern pseudo-democratic state's spectacle of freedoms, the last and most important of privileges, the one  which contains all the others: property, which they pretended to abolish in its feudal form to in fact better reinforce it as commodity and secondarily state property, that is to say as a means of domination of their class on all the others and of the commodity on the world. The abstract right to property, proclaimed in the declaration of human rights, is the right for the immense majority to always be dispossessed of any real property on the materiel means of its life. It is not an accident if the first democracies were democratic only by owners' vote. The capitalist property of space and time is the last rampart which impedes the individual and collective free use of life in the federated antitheocratic counsels.