Ethic vs. Capital


French Revolution, after the  American independence war, was the climax of a situation of widespread social unrest throughout the Western world in the late eighteenth century. The obvious counter-revolutionary aristocracy opposed a fierce resistance, so the process became a bitter conflict. Concepts such as the political left and right, were born to the world at that time, directly from the French National Assembly. The bourgeoisie, with the invaluable support of the masses, after a decade of revolutionary government, full of intrigues and nonsense, was released from the blood´s rights of kings, the feudal aristocracy and the privileges of the clergy, however, were excluded from his project to the farmers and workers, those who had largely the merit of the success of the revolution, inter alia they argued that only those who have something, they can value it and thus preserve and defend it (?),  putting in that way, end once and for all to the democratic sense of the revolution. The Wiki-biographies of Babeuf and Fouché, illustrate suitably this fraud.. (To Fouché is attributed the fatherhood of the phrase “Every man has his price, only it needs to find it out, however he had to send it to Babeuf to the guillotine, could he not determine what was his price?). C3% A9

In a short space of time, since the early nineteenth century, the triumphant bourgeoisie was split; the banking sector, the big landlords and magnates of the stock exchange, they assumed the role of the old nobility, emerging as genuine financial aristocracy, detrimental the industrial bourgeoisie, subject to the first, and the petty bourgeoisie, the middle class across the breadth of its social spectrum.

From then until today, the banking sector has the “tablets of destinies” (1), and the example they are giving is regrettable to say the least.

This financial elite, oligarchy in the purest state, is responsible for countless environmental atrocities and anonymous genocides to get economic gain, by too long time.  Of course that as a pressure group par excellence,they can afford, among other things, pass the ethic below the triumph arc, there’s the scandal of the AIG in the U.S. , the last to date.

Man is a creature in certain respects fragile and extremely weak compared to the temptations, and also often confuses easily the success in life, with the economic prosperity and social.    Gives the impression that money dehumanizes people, but money is one thing, is not guilty of anything, what really  unworthy us of this, is the attitude of some people, it is not economic inequality, is the exploitation of man by man, as a system to hold it.

This outrage which represents the bad distribution of wealth, was in the past  more clear than now, the power is in the depths of the dazed sea of the middle class. Today, in the welter of the excessive cities, is very dificult to distinguish by appearance, for his way of thinking or the car you can drive, to the owner of a multinational from a plumber, but this is not really more than one mirage subtly developed for this purpose.

This is why an Islamic fundamentalist does not distinguish between a subway wagon full of ordinary workers, and the luxury cottage  property of the multimillionaire president of a football club.

Hinduism holds,  whoever allows himself be trapped by the material things, does not escape the wheel of births, which is the worst that can happen to one, the rest religions also  rant about selfishness, greed or usury (often in a display of hypocrisy of the worst class), but it is a shame that the burglars, I mean to the magnates,(a wordplay a bit stupid is possible in castilian, but not in English => “magnate” means rich man, “mangante” = burglar) this sort of threats do not impress them at all.

Do with them what was done with the nobility in their day, would stay a little out of place at the moment, those who really have reason to end the present “old regime” are too far and they have no means. I do not speak of the Arab world, although they are    victims sufficiently and with means enough, unfortunately they also are too guilty, to lead morally to those excluded from the first world. We’ll see already.
“Doesn´t it happiest who has got more, but who needs less.”  I don´t know the source, I like this old saying because it sounds very secular and it can be extrapolated to other meaning levels  of the strictly personal. At the corporate level “It is not better the company that has got more assets, but one which does not need subsidies”, even dare I say “It is not better the company that has got more employees, but which requires less” (I am a technocrat, I love science and technology), “It is not better a city because has more hospitals (more police, fire, aldermen, traffic, tourists, etc.)but which requires less”, or “No is the best organization that which has more rules or laws,
but which requires less”, gives food for thought.

Finally I wonder how long the equatorial forests hold, to the pace of logging companies and landowners. The desert is advancing. It Comes to my head a movie where some aliens fairly repulsives, disguised as humans, after infiltrating the political and economic elite, they tried to adapt the earth´s climate  , too wet for their vital needs , by forcing desertification. Although their behavior is not very different from those of fiction, I sincerely hope that the influential people, are real human beings and they have grandchildren, to worry about.

We need a new revolution, mankind needs a different society of today, a project in which it trusts, a better model.

(1). In Sumerian mythology “slats of destinations” represent the power, then, just in the hands of the gods.