It's easy to say that aren't the crooks stupid to ruin their collaboration opportunities by committing their banal acts or that violence is not a smart way to resolve disputes. On the other hand, it's pretty stupid to explain philosophy to the shark that is chewing Your feet or to the soldier, who is turning his/her bayonet in Your body to make more damage. When a tiger comes to eat You, then throw away Your gun and declare that You're so smart that you do not resolve conflicts by violence? Tell the shark that his/her violent activity reduces his/her future collaboration opportunities?
Is it smart to be dirt poor and do "big science" in a situation, where there's not enough money to cover the basics that has been widely available for at least 100 years? It's not that smart to state that one is too high class to to deal with the violent crooks that rage within one's living environment. The only catch is, how not to get between the jaws of the other gang of sharks called the Police, specially if the rest of the violent crooks do not care about whether they get between the jaws of the Police or not or the Police is on their payroll or the Police is just just plain lazy. The one and only purpose of "law", "corporate rules", is to avoid killing the organism with the antimeasures of the cancer that threatens the life of the organism. Enslaving and robbing does not require any "law", "corporate rules", because plain force and propaganda is enough.
Of course there are the generals that might want to perform some regular robbing, generally called as taxation, of their own. That might happen any time, because there is at least one Hitler equivalent in almost every town.
Given the fact that life is finite and if no accidents or violent death occur, lasts roughly only about 100 years, the only question that a person definitely must try to answer during his/her life is, how to spend it so that one can feel satisfied with the results. Automation will render food, shelter, drugs, vodka cheap enough to make its cost appealing for hardworking and financially successful people to pay for universal access to food, shelter, vodka, drugs just to get the drug addicts, including alcohol addicts, to be drunk, high, at their homes, out of site, without applying any violence or effort to spend time on violence related controversy. Social workers will just roll in a barrel of ethanol per month to anyone, who wants to become a hopeless alcoholic. People, who do not want to drink ethanol, can sell their barrels to airline companies for fuel or use them as fuel in their own cars or collect the barrels all year around to use them as heating fuel during winter. People, who want to do drugs, may have them also for free, because the hallucinating plants grow wildly at unframed lands and transportation costs will not be that big of an issue. All in all the only thing to worry about is, whether the 1 hour that I spend on activity X today, is spent well enough that I won't be missing it at age 100, at my death-bed if I had enough brains to think clearly and fast enough at that age? Of course, in practice the "death bed" can be replaced with a falling plane or sinking ship or just some situation, where I'm paralyzed and bleeding out, but the general idea stays the same.
Black Africa has demonstrated that hunger is not the thing that gets people working. Arab countries have demonstrated that a "citizen salary" that covers all living costs and therefore gives people time to work on science, religion, arts, philosophy, does not make people to be active in arts, science, religion, philosophy. Therefore, one of the main things that determines, whether a person works on something or not, seems to be intellectual interests.
What regards to the thought that political elites in Nazy Germany and Soviet Russia optimized the social systems purely according to the well being of the political elites, then I do not believe that the ruins of Berlin or the ditch that the Soviet Union became, were something that the "great leaders" dreamt of. Hitler dreamed of great Germany with colossal architecture, not ruins and famine. Lenin and his successors dreamt of a powerful, militarily strong, resilient, hoard of people under their control, not the poor mess that the Soviet Union actually became. Even the Siim Kallas felt honest discomfort due to the fact that majority of his tax-slaves are quite poor. Smartest of the super-mafiosos do try to be a kind of parasites that let their hosts to thrive. Interestingly they haven't figured out a solution, how to live in symbiosis with their "victims" in stead of limiting the abilities of their victims, but that matter will be solved by brutal competition, where only the party that is able to withstand the given environment the longest will prevail. Best claws and nails will not help, if it's the hunger that kills. In some situations even stronger muscles will not help, if the opponent with weaker muscles can last longer distances. Loads of monetary resources are not enough, if the opponent can withstand longer than the deadline set by the burn rate.
On the other hand, there do exist people, who have so modest wishes, so primitive life agenda, that the limits that come with killing people on the street for wallets does not effect the fulfillment of the life agenda of those people. Therefore, there is the issue, how to live so that the vast masses of people, who have low intellectual demands for their life, do not make it impossible for the smarter and harder-working people, who have higher initiative, to thrive. May be that explains, why Silicon Valley, Hollywood, New York banking industry, Las Vegas have been more successful than their non-U.S. counterparts regardless of the fact that majority of the United States seems to be quite a dump.
As everything has a cost, often monetary cost, then there does exist the issue, how to acquire smartly. Getting and maintaining the mandate of the majority tends to have a really high cost, even if loads of money were easily available. The mandate gives the blessing and acceptance of the majority to torture, kill, rob (hereafter: TKR) anyone, but the question arises, what can be achieved by the TKR, except acquisition of monetary resources and an "ego trip"? TKR will cost the support of the smartest, more capable, people. Tautologically said, people, who acquire the mandate for TKR, will only achieve huge monetary resources, satisfaction at the "ego trip" and the continuation of the TKR which will be necessary for them to stay alive/out-of-prison and maintain their mandate. In Roman times the mandate for TKR came with the threat of being killed, but in 21. century, when all atrocities are graphically public, nobody wants to kill the officials, who tortured hundreds of people, killed over 3000 of their own people (U.S. soldiers in the Iraq war) and roughly a million foreigners (the Iraqis). In 21. century, the problem with TKR is not that it would be a dangerous activity for the party that executes the TKR, but rather, what is the cost of its implementation in terms of personal time and effort and what can be achieved with it. (Black humor: teenagers get away with school shootings all the time, but nobody wants to shooot the Georgge Wallker Buush and his officials, despite the fact that they do not have herds of bodyguards around them, unregistered weapons can be easily acquired in Texas and drug lords use piles of all sorts of automatic weapons in Mexico all the time. Not even the Iraqis care to take on the GWBuuush.)
The Karl Marx saw a struggle between "bad capitalists" and the "proletariat". As of 2014_12 I(email@example.com) see the struggle between the people, who do not approve TKR and the dumb majority, who accepts TKR, including the TKR that is executed on the very same people, who give their mandate for the TKR. A thing to keep in mind is that discussions can not be "public" even within the "smart" communities.
The dumb majority is probably not going to go anywhere, except when they get killed in some nasty war or catastrophe. Probably the best, smartest, thing to do is to keep more than one set of assets, each set associated with a separate identity, and to level the playing field with technology by allowing anyone to run a censorship free web service, allowing anyone to quickly grow factories from factory seeds (printers that print more printers?), allowing anyone to hide monetary assets. The general idea is that if a server park is destroyed, a new one can be set up easily, if a factory is destroyed, a new one can be quickly grown from factory seeds. As with drugs, it's not the quantity that matters, but quality and quality means design related data. As of 2014 data storage technology is already good enough for this task. The most critical part is hardware, factory seeds. Once that is done, no amount of dumb people with their wishes to TKR can have their ways. In a world of 3D printing and 100% automated production, owners of different types of printers can exchange products without using money and banks. An area of economics that needs studying is, how to advertize services and goods without getting caught by robbers and how to exchange physical goods without getting caught by robbers.
To be continued.