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.
No comments:
Post a Comment