.
CHAPTER IV
Caesar. - I like to reason with you. She has a way of presenting things that seem to be right ... I am not saying that is wrong at all.
In the current social order is indeed real or apparent absurdities. For example, an impossible thing to understand is the custom. While people starve or not have food pellagra good and plentiful, the government makes the reception of American grain, which has more than you need and want to sell it. It is like one who, being hungry, refused to eat. However ...
Jorge. - Yes, but the government is not hungry nor the owners have the grain of Italy, in the interest of which, the government decreed rights of entry on wheat. If you decide to those who are hungry, no one would refuse to import the grain.
Caesar. - I know, and understand that you achieve with these arguments cut through the village, they see things together and on one side. But, in order not to deceive, it is necessary to examine all aspects of the issue and I prepared to do when I interrupted.
is true that the interest of owners strongly influences the imposition of entry fees. But on the other hand, if the borders were open, Americans that can produce grain and meat in a better position than us, would eventually fully cater our market, and then what would our farmers? The owners would be ruined, but workers would still be worse. The bread could be sold for five cents a kilo, but if there is no way to win these five cents, people would starve as before. On the other hand, Americans, more or less expensive, want to collect their goods, and if Italy did not occur, what would be paid?
I say that in Italy they could grow crops suitable for your soil and climate change with other countries: wine, for example, oranges, flowers ... But what if those things that we can produce at a good price, not because others want or do not use it themselves? Not to mention that, to transform the culture needed capital, knowledge and, above all time, "while what we eat?
Jorge. - Perfect! Have you put your finger on the pulse. Free trade can not solve poverty, unable to resolve it as protectionism. Favors free trade hurts consumers and producers, and, conversely, favors protectionism harms farmers and consumers, so that workers who are both producers and consumers, is the same and always will be until it is abolished the capitalist system.
If self-employed workers and not for the benefit of employers, any region could produce enough for their needs and then would only have to agree with other countries to distribute the work of production as soil quality, climate, easy to get raw materials, the customs of the inhabitants, etc.., so that all men could have the maximum enjoyment with minimal effort.
Caesar. - Yes, but that is only a utopia.
Jorge. - I will now, but when the people have understood that and can live better, be transformed into reality. There is no obstacle to the selfishness of some and the ignorance of others.
Caesar. - There are many obstacles, my friend. You think once expelled the patterns, swim in opulence ...
Jorge. - Do not say that. On the contrary, I think to leave the state of deprivation that keeps us capitalism, and to organize production so that largely satisfy the needs of all, it is necessary work hard, but not the will to work is lacking, the people, is the possibility. We regret the current system, not because we have to keep idle in comfort, not that we like, and because they are the idle codes governing the work and prevent us from working in good condition and to produce enough for everyone.
Caesar. - You exaggerate. It is true that owners often do not work in order to speculate about the scarcity of products, but even more so because they lack capital.
Earth and not enough raw materials to produce. We need to, you know, instruments, machinery, premises, means to pay the workers while they work, ie capital, and that can only be achieved over time. Many companies are nothing more than a project fail due to lack of funds! Imagine if you also as you like it, came a revolution. With the destruction of capital and the huge mess that would be generated only get more misery.
Jorge. - This is another mistake or another lie of the defenders of this order: lack of capital. The capital may be lacking to any company because of hoarding made by others, if short, will find that there are plenty of idle capital, just as there are plenty of uncultivated land. Do not see many
machines will rust, how many factories are closed, how many houses are uninhabited or sparsely inhabited, while most are not home and the builders can not find work?
food is needed for the workers while they work, but also to eat even if they are unemployed. They eat little and badly, but are alive and willing to work, as an employer needs them. Therefore, it is not because they lack the means to live, so that workers do not work. If they could work on their own, accept, too, if really necessary, living as they work to be unemployed, because they would know that he would leave temporary sacrifice finally the state of misery and oppression. Imagine
, the time that an earthquake destroys a city, ruins a whole country. And before long, the first being rebuilt more beautiful than before and the second is not no sign of disaster. Curious then the owners and the capitalists are the means to rebuild everything in a blink of an eye, at the same place where there was no money to build a house for the workers.
Regarding the possible destruction that would lead the revolution, it is hoped that the people do not want to destroy what would become of their property. Either way would not be worse than what happened in an earthquake.
In principle there should be no impediments to achieve the goal, but two, which would be impossible to overcome without: the unconsciousness of the people and the police, but
Ambrosio. - You talk of capital, labor, production, consumption, etc., However, law, justice, morality and religion never says anything.
Find the best use of land and capital is very important, but even more so
moral issues. The ideal is for everyone to live well, but to achieve this utopia were to renege on the principles of law, on which every civil society must be founded, so I prefer a thousand times to keep the current injustice. And also think that there must be a supreme will to regulate it all.
The world is not made by itself and there must be an afterlife, I say God, heaven, hell, because you are unable to believe it, but there must be something that explains everything and where the apparent injustices of here are below their compensation. Do you believe may violate the harmony of the universe? No one can and we have no choice but to accept the provisions. Complete
once and for all, to bribe the masses, to raise chimerical hopes in the souls of the disinherited, fanning the embers. Do they want to destroy civilization inherited from our ancestors, through a revolution social?
If you do good work, if you want to alleviate as much as possible the suffering of the wretched, tell them they are resigned to their fate, because true happiness is in content. Moreover, everyone must carry his cross, all social classes have their trials and their obligations, and not always the happiest people are those living in opulence.
Jorge. - Come, honorable judge set aside the declamations about the "great principles" and conventional indignation, we're not in court and now no one has to pronounce sentence against me.
As guess, to hear him speak, you are not among the disinherited! And it's so useful resignation of miserable for those living at their expense.
First of all, let him pray, transcendental and religious arguments, in which not even you believe. The mysteries of the universe does not know anything and you do not know more than me, so it is useless to bring them to discussion. On the other hand, consider that the belief in a creator god and father of the men would not be a good weapon for you. If the priests, who always have been and are in the service of the lords, delegitimize the duty of the poor resigned to their fate, others might legitimize (and in the course of history there who has) the right to justice and equality. If God is our common father, we are all brothers. And God can not some of their children and martiricen to exploit others, and the rich, the rulers, Cains would be cursed by the father. But never mind that.
Ambrosio. - Well, let's religion, because you would be useless to talk about it.
But I guess that supports the existence of a moral right and above all else.
Jorge. - Listen, if it were true that the law, justice, morality, require, and consecrate the oppression and unhappiness, even of a single human being, I would say immediately to law, justice, morality, are nothing but lies, infamous weapon forged to defend the privileged, and such have been when you understand how you understand them.
The law, justice and morality should seek the highest good of all, in other words are synonymous with arrogance and injustice. And it's so true that this concept meets the need of the existence and development of society, which has been formed and persisted in human consciousness and is gaining increasing momentum, despite all efforts to the contrary, of those so far ruled the world.
can not defend yourself, but with poor sophistry, these institutions with the principles of morality and justice as you understood when speaking abstractly.
Ambrosio. - Certainly, you are very presumptuous. Not enough to deny, as I think it does, the right of property, but also claims that we are unable to defend it with our own principles.
Jorge. - Exactly. And if you want I'll show you next time.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment