I don't think evil is the right word to describe a political economic world order that must be changed to its root. Evil connotes a supernatural being in many people's minds, and too often the struggle against it involves attacking the individual human avatars of evil. Today's world order may be something much worse, conveyed in the writer's use of the word evolution. I say "may be" because I dread the implications if he is right. What we have today, after the collapse of communism, is decentralized capitalist totalitarianism. In the absence of rival ideologies I believe all socio-economic systems evolve organically toward an extreme form, amoral in its function, but not evil. What were once constraints on extremism, such as social mobility, elections or a free press, become co-opted into precious but toothless values and institutions. I don't know why this happens. And as far as I can see in history, only widespread disaster such as war, environmental collapse, or pandemic disease leads to something truly new. That is why I dread the author's analysis, and doubt his prescription of direct democracy. But I am glad he brought up this more radical analysis of what is wrong in the world today for average people.