As the time goes by human societies are developing intellectually and are reshaped in a spirit of land-planning, it becomes more clear to us that the initial forms of organisation of societies were much more human. By staring back to the history of humanity we observe that we met in higher level the two basic elements of the subject of social organisation: mutual aid and self-respect to each other.
In societies where the way of production it was not privilege and property of a high social class but of entire society and the goods were produced not only the inferior classes, but from all the individuals of society for the themselves, human used to live and develop himselve with the purest and the most liberal terms. All the other oppressive systems, from the feudalism, the monarchy up to current modern capitalism, the only thing that proved, was their complete failure. Besides by definition, from the moment where these systems have as basic beginning the partition and the breaking into pieces of society in individuals-unit, they cannot function as tools in the sector of organisation and management of human teams and populations.
Putting therefore these two historical moments to face each other, the beginning of humanity and the point in which it is now exist with all this social unrest - en via of a crisis in world level -, is given birth the big question: "Is the suitable moment for the radical change of this world?" the answer is positive and necessary as long as never.
This study therefore tries to give or at least to structure an answer to this question which for some people constitutes a direct need, for others a utopia, and for some others the necessity of completion of the ideal society.
All the radical movements (communistic and anarchic) addopt this fact as the only exit from the oppressive world of powers and social inequalities, but none of these movements answer completely how this fact could work practical. This of course is obliged to the fact that the practices of rebellions cannot prompt the society into the destruction of this aged world, because the theory does not include the utopia and as masterfully reports Lefebvre :
"Today more than ever never, there is not exist thought without utopia. Because it is different the way we are pleased observe, to communicate, to ratify what we find in frond of our eyes. We do not go far away from here, we stand with the eyes nailed in real saying we are realists. But we do not think. It does not exist thought that does not explore a probability, that does not try to find a orientation. Implying of course, that from the moment where we avoid the positivism, which confuse everybody and it is nothing more than the absence of thought, we are in frond of borders, between possible and impossible, that difficult separated from each other. However, it does not exist today and specifically in the field that we are concerned about, thought without utopia."
This study therefore, tries to bridge the gap between ¨before¨ and ¨after¨ and it gives some food for thought, on how it could be structured the ideal society in practice.