It won’t hurt if we take a moment every day to think about social inequalities. We would realize that we live in a different time, but it is much the same as ever. It is possible that both were organized around secure or reliable foundations. But no, let’s say it’s a guess, maybe an initial hypothesis that science has already proven wrong many times over. Wishful thinking, no doubt, to think about it every day.
We wanted to believe that solidarity was a universal variable, and we found that it was a determining factor for salt, but also for everything, if there is one. Alone we are nobody, though we seek our identity and protection from the many roars of life. Perhaps it was worth something in the first tribes of men and women who roamed the Earth, or even then, because it is said that in the union is the power of survival. Not everything can be measured, but low-income countries are alone. Moreover, even the rich display their nudity, although for them it is a virtue. With each passing day investors, multinational companies and other owners of the world They want us to believe that there are no limits at all when it comes to satisfying personal desires. What a jerk!
More can be less. Imagine the Earth and its attributes. More people to distribute and it touches less to more, which makes those who have done poorly in distribution feel very alone, when in fact the disadvantaged are multitudes. There are places in the world, maybe Somalia and Mali – so many would fit here – where if we put a lot of evil as an attribute, we spoil everything. Even (well)intentioned religions or other NGO initiatives have not achieved in any country the minimum of something for all people; human development may be worth it, but it is not bought in stores. By now, despite the various vanities, owning or owning are nuances of a life of ups and downs: in Europe or the Sahel, in Spanish cities or in hidden rural areas, in the Wall Street area or in the worst suburbs of Bombay. Believing or not in improving inequalities takes time to manifest itself in everything you live.
Nor should there be factories of the best or of the worst, but the fact is that it counts as a quantity, as with everything; global scale shows dangerous trends, with Putin’s war bread has risen even in Niger. Something like this happens with nothing, what a mistake that the noun is only feminine in Spanish. But there are women without rights in Afghanistan and persecuted around the world. By the way, it will have to be specified whether the world is a unified whole or pieces of a puzzle with different divisions, whether it is something or nothing; perhaps a fancy, like the adverb nothing.
It’s never almost always nothing, half-hearted optimists would like to go on. José Hierro wrote that: “After nothing, or after all, I knew that everything was nothing more than nothing.” Has it remained since then in almost all African countries or was it already before? Nothing, never, and everything is on the agenda. They arise or are interpreted.
A lot, if in short it is less, but it can be enough. Certainty never reaches universal equality; someone called it social ethics at the time. Hunger and poverty will come here. Never or nothing, despite their difficult existence, they have always been different to everyone, even in these countries. Which tells us about an unfair world. It just might be enough, then your opponent is lying. It is fair to say that it barely fills up and then it is poorly connected to solidarity. Official development assistance (ODA) would be useful here. For this reason it seems scarcely mentioned in the true history of nations. “After all” or “above all” in our language mean something deep, they are not a fixed label that has served us this year to various catastrophes: floods, fires, climate change and heat waves, hungry queues in front of the sidewalks social centers, migrations without a destination and various famines, galloping inflation, etc. All generated painful life scenes in crowds.
Don’t get me wrong, but to get closer to what is just, some earthling, or non-believer, came up with Ethics, in capital letters. It had its admirers and detractors, or unconscious ones. But since this spread badly, something new had to be learned: justice. This, they say, is neither bought nor sold. However, there are people who more or less live in it, and others argue and fight against injustice. A place where many (millions of millions) already live. The beneficiaries protect it because if it is eliminated, it will reach them without them feeling it, even if it is not through action but through inaction. Look for an example in any rich country.
Different religions say that justice orders life in the kingdom of heaven. No one knows if there is justice on Earth, which is unjust because of the lack of solidarity. They speak of heavenly justice, which puts everyone in his place and does not sin as much as on earth. And here it is done knowingly by the watchers or watchers. The data on hunger, disease, abused lives, unequal wealth, etc. are the result of life.
Never or always associated with justice are treacherous. There will always be crumbs to apply; or nothing will be non-existent because it is not a measurable quantity by international criteria such as the metric system. We think of Africa in 2022, supposedly decolonized.
There are people who were named Justa or Justo. What a commitment. But the opposite does not exist, never, in names, but in actions or social distribution. It is discovered when one stops to think in which components of life there are more or less injustices; when you look through the press, and almost everything bears the mark of how unjust it is to have so little for some and so much left for others, send the usual ones. Shouldn’t we change the constitutions and make them humane? The news in the world is explosions that are taken as all or nothing, always or maybe not. The current covid crises, the invasion of Ukraine, price spikes, the belligerence of some countries and our damned climate change. They are everything and threaten to leave nothing for many people. Besides, there is nothing left of what was nothing. A columnist gave it this title to talk about the social condition of universal solidarity.
Nothing or him is never alike, but for that they must hold on to something that can be counted. All or always follow similar paths. Who says he passes almost instantly from everything to nothing, from always to seemingly never; or compose nothing always and whole never. Sometimes this happens in natural or social disasters. This is seen with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
It seems certain that the same is never always the same. It was the illusion of nothing breaking or something to be specified. It may not have been and will not be, as long as it is not about petty concerns or things valued by a few. This is where feelings come in. Another chapter of extremes that can hardly be measured in the form of human rights. But it is time to contradict, to mitigate this or that collective calamity and to adapt to it, on key issues such as social inequality or the effects of climate change; the equation of loneliness at the same time as the binomial of the worst like this. It is time to demonstrate the ease of “What difference does it make that nothing is nothing,/ if in the end nothing else will be./ after so much everything for nothing”, in the poem Vida de José Hierro (1922-2022, ) .
PS: Writer Javier Marías died on Sunday. Tragic life scene for literature. She hasn’t read any of his novels or newspaper articles anyway. He is always on time; His words will never be in vain.