Sharing - The Key To Social Consciousness (A Fictional Debate)

The idea of sharing sticks like a thorn in the finger of the hardcore capitalists. The sources of earning money could drain out. Therewith connected the loss of the power status. How to argue and discuss with the elites about a social consciousness? 

First of all it is necessary to solve the term ,social‘ from the associated link ,left‘. As long as a connection between both exists the lack of understanding can never be swept off. The social consciousness exists independent from a categorized political behavior. It stands in contradiction to the ,survival of the fittest‘-thought. It‘s the moral duty of every ,supreme‘ individual to care about the weaker ones. That‘s what you do in between your own family or your friends‘ circle: you don‘t exclude those related to you because of their disability to ,succeed‘. You have an understanding for their situation and in case you care about them. That is normal. The same parameters are to be used for non-related suffering individuals. That should be normal. Not only a ,leftist‘ purpose. The social consciousness matters everyone of us. 

But it is not only sharing of material goods: Sharing of thoughts for example is a principle of every good working relation. Sharing of views helps to start the important process of reflection and to develop intercultural communication - necessary to build the fundament of democracy. And sharing of knowledge is the best way to teach and to be taught. Our branches of science or medics wouldn‘t be as far as today if the doctors or the scientists hadn‘t shared their theories and insights. 

Back to our lobby of hardcore capitalists: the discussion we are having with them about sharing can be reduced to one simple question: profit or benefit. Assuming that someone has found - a favored example - a remedy against cancer three possibilities of behavior could be prognosticated. 

One - he publishes his results of research without claiming any material demands. The Nobel Price is only one of a countless number of tributes granted to him. His name will be unforgettable in the history of humanity. (Having said that our hardcore capitalist lobby is shouting out: What did he? What a fool to distribute this kind of research for free! If he‘d asked us before!! We could‘ve made billions and billions and more billions out of it!!!). 

Two - he claims financial demands through licensing and publishes then his results of research. The Nobel Price for medical science will be awarded him for sure but to reach the same level of reverence than in case one he has to invest a certain amount of his income in beneficial projects or further research. (Now our hardcore capitalist lobby is shouting again, but not as loud as the first time: Clever guy .. now he must never work again .. it‘s up to him how he spends his money but we should invite him to our next meeting, maybe he wants to know how to make more profit.). 

Three - Fearing he may be not payed fair for his work he holds back the results of his research. Then his egoistic behavior has become in my opinion a criminal aspect, independent of his scientific achievements. (And before you guys from the hardcore capitalistic lobby try to reply put yourselves in the following place: imagine you suffer third stage cancer and all your money is useless to cure the disease which will end your life in some months or even a year - I bet you will give everything you possess for a successful treatment. As hardcore capitalists you are you will be sure able to regain all the money in a short-termed period.) 

Summoning up the profit may be a nice side-effect of the efforts someone invested in his work or his projects but it has to be gained constantly. The benefit however is sustainable and can not be taken by the tax authority (read that, capitalists?). The more you share the more you gain.

Defending Multiculturalism

After a some cold, grey and rainy days which were unusual for mid July I decided to take a walk through the sun-flooded streets of the city. The pedestrian zone was crowded, like always, locals and tourists shopping and carrying bags, young people keeping busy with their phones, a group of retirees sitting in front of a restaurant and watching the street event. In one word: life. 

At once I remembered the tragedy of Oslo and Anders B.'s crude manifesto. According to his vision Europe had to be 'cleaned' from left-winged Multiculturalists, peace-activists, consuming capitalists and most of all Muslims. 

I looked around. Two punks, each a bottle of beer in his hand asking some girls - one wears a shirt with an oversized peace-sign - for a cigarette. Traditionally dressed women, probably from the Emirates, strolling side by side and giggling. Street artists performing pantomime and painting. Gipsy musicians playing melancholic melodies. All of them would be vanished.

Heading towards central station I walked through the vivid streets full of groceries and kebab restaurants. The fresh flavor of oranges, bananas and pineapples hung in the air. Families were sitting outside having an early dinner. Old men were playing board games, in front of them glasses filled with tea. A group of children crossed my way, huge eyes stared at me, followed by a big smile. All of them would be vanished.

And I would sorely miss it.

The multicultural togetherness is anything but failed. The only ones who really failed are guys like Anders B. with their fatal world outlook. It is up to us to watch out for people like him and to try to convince them from being wrong with their views. Unfortunately peace is not taken for granted. But a basic step in this direction is made accepting oneself and each other as part of a community.

Deconstructing Democracy

No term is more connected with the nowadays global freedom efforts. Wether as desirable aim of the civilizations revolting against their totalitarian rulerships or as demand of a new definition in those nations which have implemented it for some generations more or less successful in their social structure.

Thereby democracy is from all ideological forms of government the most open and at the same time the most fragile way of political cohabiting. Open because it needs from the beginning more than one single approach of organized togetherness to give a platform for dialog and debate. Fragile because it can be turned in its counterpart, the monocracy, through calculated infiltration, serving only as appearance.

Todays democracy seems for many citizens too complicated to analyze in a few sentences. Coalitions here, practical constraints there, and, most of all, interests. If a democratic president claims himself to be the first servant of the people many may shake their heads mumbling words like 'hypocrisy' and 'lobbyism'. And if the candidate of another party underlines his empathy for the people's demands the supporters of the other fractions raise their arms shouting 'populism', if they're right or not.

So far the situation modern Western societies are dealing with. Sounds not confident at all. The reason why more and more concerned citizen have taken their destiny in their own hands founding NGO's to discuss the future of modern democracy without participation of elected politicians. The movements in Greece and Spain are not only social self-regulating communities, they have become a serious counterpart for the ruling elites whose indecision undermined the trust in responsible policy.

But what exactly is democracy? 

After the necessary deconstruction of the current status the population remains, each individual possesses one equal voice. Subject of the democratic process is the decision-making: Questions have to be answered like 'Are we for or against it?' or 'Do we want to continue or change?' In the next step the fractions within the population - let's keep the look on only two to simplify matters - choose their representatives, usually those who are able to argue and discuss on the highest possible level with their counterparts. The debate phase begins and each fraction has not only the right to express their opinion and to convince those ones who are indecisive but also the duty to listen to arguments of the other side. After debating all pros and cons the electoral phase starts searching a simple majority, 50% + x. 

The winner of the election is now the representative of the decision made by the people. But he - or she - represents not only the major fraction. The representative we call from now on the politician serves due to the electoral decision the whole community, even those who stand in contradiction to the political decision and form an opposition. The leading politician is responsible for all individuals always being aware that a possible failure of the decision token can shift the majority percentage and bring him - or her - down.

That is my personal definition of democracy freed from the crust of todays' complexity. While the societies ruled by autocratic regimes are searching the roots of democratic consciousness from the bottom the Western nations are heading towards it from the top. A historic chance to come together at the same level.

Uprising In The Ripening

First comes the revolution, the impact. Followed by the evolution, the amplitude, the reverberation. People are moving, regime's apparently not. The freedom movement makes remarkable steps both in regions most ones have to fear for their lives like Syria and in countries "only" dealing with material drawbacks like Spain. Discussions are led about the next steps, unity is to be formed between the different groups and the variable perspectives, common goals and proposals for possible solutions are to be defined. The last two days I read very touching reports about the atmosphere and the activities of the Jul8 Movement in Egypt and the Syntagma Movement in Greece. 

Cairo's Tahrir Place isn't any longer occupied by a group of mainly emotional affected demonstrators as in the beginning. After the toppling of Mubarak the transitional officials, better said the army, are handling the reform process slow, too slow for the people so they decided to revive the protest movement of Jan25 under the new date. Jul8 is the next step in a direction of direct democracy, ready to take the hurdles. All the images in and around the tents spread a very peaceful spirit, everything looks more and better organized. The rational influence is manifesting the movement, the people are one step ahead while the transitional officials have difficulties with the demanded speed of the renewal.

Similar impressions described and reported from Athens. People come together. No aggressive behavior, no commercial intentions. Share food, beverages and thoughts. Communicate. Connect. After the violent clashes dominating the worldwide headlines the Greek protesters want to be taken serious. The way they present themselves in their new found, self-declaimed normality underlines their demand. In the meantime the officials try to solve the crisis pumping more money in the empty cash boxes and heaping up more debts and more burdens for the society. And they are not able to explain the people the mechanisms of their opaque financial transactions. Thus the citizen are losing their confidence and demand more transparency. They know not only their right to be precisely informed, they call for it.

Elected or not, the regimes and administrations don't behave themselves as representatives of the civil society. They may praise a hundred times to decide everything in the name of the people but in fact they decide in the name of the commercial lobbies or in their own name. Or they decide not to decide. The citizen are long enough fallen in lethargy and have accepted their fate. By taking action and organizing themselves they are dealing with their destiny straight heading in the direction they - and not the government - want.

The officials are still playing out. This leads inevitably to the question for the reason. Can't they respond to the people's demands? Then they have to be replaced, not at the legal election date, a short transition period's granted until reelection is determined. Or won't they response to the people's demands? Then they have to be replaced immediately, without transition period, no discussion about it.

Poems Against Tyranny - #01 (E/D/NL)

This morning I read in the newspaper
a young man
hauled off in handcuffs.
Justified I thought
drinking my coffee:
This never happens to me.
 

Noontime, sitting in the lunchroom,
the radio runs in the background.
Two older men charged,
accused of public disturbance.
They mentioned something like 'flyers':
This never happens to me.
 

Stopped at the trip home.
Traffic caused by students.
Banners waving. Two policemen
bearing a woman away.
Staring at my watch I thought:
This never happens to me.

No movie following the news,
instead of that a special report.
Uprisings in a neighboring country.
Dozens arrested.
I'm shaking my head:
This never happens to me.

Suddenly the door bell rings.
Who wants something from me?
I'm opening, three men in black
request me to attend them.
And I thought always:
This never happens to me ..

_____________________________________

Heute früh schlug ich die Zeitung auf
das erste, was ich sah: ein junger Mann,
abgeführt in Handschellen ..
Wird wohl seinen Grund haben, dachte ich
und nahm einen tiefen Schluck Kaffee:
So etwas kann mir nicht passieren.

Des Mittags in der Kantine sitzend,
das Radio lief im Hintergrund.
Zwei ältere Herren festgenommen,
der Ruhestörung bezichtigt.
Ich hörte noch von Flugblättern:
So etwas kann mir nicht passieren.

Aufgehalten auf der Heimfahrt.
Ein Stau, verursacht durch Studenten.
Plakate fliegen, zwei Polizisten
tragen eine Frau weg.
Ich sah auf die Uhr und dachte mir:
So etwas kann mir nicht passieren.

Kein Spielfilm nach den Nachrichten,
stattdessen eine Sondersendung.
Aufstände im Nachbarland,
Verhaftungen im Dutzendpack.
Ich schüttelte nur den Kopf:
So etwas kann mir nicht passieren.

Auf einmal klingelt es.
Wer mag um diese Uhrzeit was von mir?
Ich öffne die Tür, drei Herren in Schwarz
fordern mich auf, sie zu begleiten.
Dabei dachte ich immer:
So etwas kann mir nicht passieren ..

_____________________________________

Vanmorgens de krant opgeslaan,
een jonge kerel,
weggeleid in handboeien.
Zal waarschijnlijk een reden hebben, dacht ik
en nam een ​​diepe slok koffie:
Zulke dingen mogen niet gebeuren voor mij.

de lunch in de kantine zitten,
de radio op de achtergrond
Twee oudere mannen gearresteerd,
van ruzie beschuldigd
Ik hoorde van de folders:
Zulke dingen mogen niet gebeuren voor mij.

Gestopt op weg naar huis een file veroorzaakt door studenten.
Posters vliegen, twee politieagenten
dragen weg een vrouw.
Ik keek op de klok en dacht bij mezelf:
Zulke dingen mogen niet gebeuren voor mij.

Geen filmpje achter het nieuws.
in plaats daarvan een speciale missie
opstanden in het buurland,
arrestaties waar je heenkijkt.
Ik schudde mijn hoofd:
Zulke dingen mogen niet gebeuren voor mij.

Plotseling gaat de deurbel
Wie iets van mij wil op dit moment?
ik open de deur, drie mannen in het zwart
vragen mij om hen te vergezellen!
En ik altijd dacht
zulke dingen mogen niet gebeuren voor mij ..

Facing The Death. Questioning the Western society's handling.

For some weeks I'm watching now the partly horrible videos recorded during the Syrian uprising. Kids were tortured to death, students died through head shots caused by huge caliber ammunition and two days ago I was confronted with images showing two martyrs rolled over by a tank. I've noticed that the Syrians like all other predominant Muslim societies haven't any fear of contact with the physical consequences of death despite of their shock, consternation and sorrow. What seems for them natural is in our eyes not imaginable, not bearable. Many people here I talked about what I've seen stopped the discussion or turned away. It is their personal decision, I cannot force them into watching or imagining something they don't want. I came to the conclusion that both the optical and the physical confrontation with death is almost blanked out in the Christian-rooted secular Western society. The sudden loss of a beloved relative or a good friend is for everyone hard to bear. But in our culture the death isn't longer a real part of our life: We mourn while others take care of the dead's body. Until the moment of the funeral everything is prepared through pathologists and morticians, the only contact we have with the corpse is facing the coffin. In some cases it might be half-opened and we have a last look at the deceased's face. Could it be possible that we've lost the relation to the physical aspect of death? For the Muslim society the body of a deceased belongs to the family. The same way all relatives were from the day of birth present they are on the day of death. The circle is closed. Here, in the Western society, the circle seems to be closed. We bid farewell only in our memories and thoughts delegating the responsibility for the mortal remains to someone professional, someone the deceased is a stranger to. In this way death became more and more ethereal, amorphous in our minds and in our souls. But the corpus belongs as well to the whole image of a human being. Why don't we care in all for the deceased? We consist of spirit, soul and body. Postponing the last one out of our minds leads me to the question if we aren't able of granting the deceased the necessary respect even because we do not want to take care of the corpse. We aren't able to look at. We aren't able to touch. Even though the body is a part of the human being we lost. And wouldn't it be possibly the deceased's will to end his life voyage together with his loved ones in all three stages? Provocative? Yes. I don't want to hurt someone's personal believes, but I'm asking myself if it is the right thing to block the physical presence of death out of the minds as we do. We've interrupted the circle of life through our decision of letting do instead of doing it ourselves. We have lost our natural ability of facing the death. I hope one day we'll find it back.

Opinion: Basic Requirements of Unarmed Resistance

To stand against a governmental or a totalitarian regime it efforts more than individual indignation. Contrary to the European rallies conditioned by economical/political reasons the protesters in the Middle East are demanding basic human rights endangered to be killed. Their need for change is a more essential one than in relation to the question if you have tomorrow a bit more money in your pocket or not. That doesn‘t mean the citizens‘ protests in Europe aren‘t as necessary, they are justified as well. The continuative thought leads to the advisement what both resistance movements have in common, what they basically are sharing.  A few essential topics:

Unity

وحدة

One of the reasons someone like Silvio Berlusconi is still ruling Italy while ruining the nation‘s prestige causes in the circumstance that the opposition is obviously in the majority but unable to act united. After the massive class-comprehensive demonstration of unity all over Egypt the end of the Mubarak regime was sealed. Without unity resistance is vulnerable. Every regime profits from a split in between the opponents and tries therefore a permanent agitation or infiltration.

Demands

مطالب 

Clear words connect the diversified field of the members of resistance. Best nowadays example is the nation-wide slogan ,People demand the removal of the regime.‘ Broad requirement, short and consicely verbalized. Further basic demands are in Europe more transparency and less cuts in the social system and in the Middle East an immediate ceasefire, the pull-back of the army and no armed guards on the street. The rulers‘ class has to realize that negotiations on the basic demands are absolutely out of question.

Alertness

تأهب 

The wolve is coming when the shepherd sleeps. Resistance requires more watchfulness. It is more or less a psychological state of war counting on possible offenders‘ attacks. A regime uses different tactics, from the needle-stitch policy to a massive crackdown. And if they aren‘t doing anything for a longer time, the chances on a violent eruption rise. Regimes are erratic, arrangements can be broken, the results denied.

Verve

حيوية 

As a natural enemy of fear verve is keeping the movement up. Facing a soldier or a guard seldom the same kind of verve is to be seen as in the eyes and faces of the strong-willed members of resistance. Why? Simple: those who protect the regime are either afraid, fanatic or stone-cold determined. Verve is also the source of many actions like chants, dances, happenings. Even if some pictures of dancing regime guards exist, they cannot hide their fear or their cynicism.

Resilience

مرونة 

Maybe the regimes are vaunting that the time is with them. False conclusion. With ongoing resistance their justification as leaders vanishes more and more. Former allies and defectors joining the resistance weaken the system. The regime becomes isolated and clearer to be seen. But the resilience requires deprivations, mental as physical. The regime calculates that. And this is in the Middle East much harder to bear as in Europe, let us not forget that.

Creativity

الإبداع

Regimes are generally not famous being creative. Actors, artists, writers are capable of combining impression with expression. Regimes can only create oppression. It is by no means naive holding up artworks against arms, it is long-term more efficient. Creativity is the impulse of the resistance activity. Together with verve extraordinary feats come into being: performance, street arts, music, literature. The only answer of the regime: ignorance, tear gas, bullets. Not really artists‘ implements.

Humanness

انسانية 

The crucial advantage. Regime leaders and their loyals are afraid of it. They are still captured in the delusion to declare humanness as an attitude of the weak. In fact they are the real weak ones. It takes only a look in their armory. Lawyers here, automatic rifles there. And it is easier to take up a gun than to lay it down.

Both regime types mentioned in the beginning lack in taking responsibility - the only move into a direction where the next steps can be negotiated. Taking responsibility for all illegal and lethal decisions made. And finally realizing that nowadays it isn't as simple as thirty, forty years ago to murder and dispose of dissidents. During the first Acampa demonstrations in Spain a picture was tweeted showing a protester with a banner. On it stands René Descartes‘ motto ,I think therefore I am‘ duly endorsed: ,dangerous.‘ Before the digital age slogans were heard on the streets, than presented on the media. ,Get organized!‘. Today the world wide web functions as a transmitter. ,Act. Connect. Share.‘