The common good

The common good

In my essay A New Eurasian Elite, I wrote that this elite should be guided by the common good as the highest maxim – or should feel obliged to it.
Then I wrote that the naming of the common good was a very important and not easy task to which I would like to devote more time later.
In fact, I consider a re-evaluation and description of the common good to be of imminent importance, indeed essential for the creation of a new culture and society. This claim may sound exaggerated, but modesty in such mental areas has never been my primary goal or character trait. I am well aware of the distance between desire (claim) and reality (goal). Nevertheless, I do not just want to be a dreamer.
The poet Anette Droste-Hülshoff once wrote, „You won’t move a molehill if you do not intend to move mountains“
As a descriptive heading for the new common good I say –
„Being“ is much more valuable, more important, and more meaningful than „having”
And what do I mean by „being“?
Characteristics, abilities and education are the basis of being. Of course, some – or much of it – is inherited or given.
At this point I would like to recall the saying from the Talmud –
„Pay attention to your thoughts, for they become words
Pay attention your words, for they become actions,
Pay attention to your actions, for they become habits,
Pay attention to your habits, for they become your character, which will be your destiny.”

Where am I going with this?
I want children’s education, at school and throughout their lives to pay much more attention and emphasis to acquiring skills and education than to consuming and earning money. Ability and education determine being, while excessive consumption and a desire for money acquisition are rather detrimental to being. For that reason, the global corporations‘ geostrategists in our capitalist system are not trying to convey real education to people, but are seeking to keep them stupid and docile, rather as consumers. They are helped by music (loud rock-pop-jazz-soul-rapp) – Hollywood, TV, in general the media and advertising (or perhaps the pharmaceutical industry using chemical substances)
I think music is extremely important – therefore – singing, learning to play musical instruments – and most importantly, WHAT music!
But also the acquisition, training and practicing of physical abilities, such as dancing, running, swimming, horseback riding, boxing, tennis, etc. – sometimes even the training to endure hunger or cold, etc.
Crafting or job-related skills, such as the use of a hammer, shovel, sewing needle, excavator, car, chainsaw, etc. are important and can provide real satisfaction. Watching a real virtuoso driving a truck can be as beautiful and inspiring as watching or listening to a footballer or violinist.
In my ideas of „education“ I am also willing to „unconventional“ – or according to today’s „scientific“ findings – questionable ways and methods to tread, – things that are in the field of esotericism, secret knowledge, speculation or shamanism and the like settled, such , Homeopathy, telepathy, spiritual healing and the same topics more. Just as in modern science in the name of research sometimes something must be risked – and not every attempt is crowned with success, so on other – not scientific areas.
Anyone who has read in Tolstoy’s „Anna Karenina“ the chapter of the reaper mowers at the grain harvest, understands the deep satisfaction of such a manual and physical activity, such as mowing with the scythe.
In my time as a forest worker and landscape gardener, I was able to find relative virtuosity in the handling of the chainsaw and often found the felling of trees, their pruning and processing into wood or timber as „dance“, combined with the deep feeling of physical satisfaction, as well as the performance that comes out in the end.
So if we keep an eye on the common good, the happiness and the satisfaction of being able to impart the work, skills and education – and not, as some trade unionists do – work is a necessary evil for which one “ as expensive as possible should sell „-
“should sell yourself as expensive as possible”
then we are already well on the way. You should never „sell“ yourself as a freedom-loving person. Alone the word is chosen very badly at this point.

And then, today, especially in the Western world, we are dealing with a very strongly developed, propagated individualism. -ICH “I”- (interestingly, – in English – perhaps the only language, “I” is written in capital letter) My house, my wife, my car, my vacation, my faith, my opinion, my job, my money. That was not always the case and probably not the same everywhere in the world today.
We recently visited a congress in St. Petersburg and visited, among others, the Ermitage, the Winter Palace of the last Tsar of Russia. The breathtaking splendor and wealth and the sheer immeasurable treasures and works of art caused some visitors, especially Germans, among our german friends to feel an oppressive feeling that all this wealth, was provided with the sweat and blood and endless work of workers living in dire poverty lived, was provided. This seems unfair and immoral to us from today’s individualistic point of view. Then it is said quite quickly – „with the Russians – especially then, a normal human life does not count so much“. However, I thought that many Russians, as well as our tour guide, did not feel that way. They could and can rejoice seemingly relatively undisturbed over the wonderful treasures that their Tsar once collected and built up. Obviously, they are much easier to identify with and enjoy with „their“ tsar, their history, and thus, in a way, their „wealth“. Who really can empathize with the emotional life of a former worker? Do we know whether perhaps his own private, individual life did not seem so important to him – and perhaps he was proud and happy about „his“ mighty Tsar, who gave him and his family work and bread and shelter from enemies? And maybe he was also proud and happy to be involved and involved in this great project. – Maybe?!
The situation is similar with buildings, such as the Moscow Metro. I perceived them as „cult sites of communism“. They were even more visible – built „for the people“. Or the great churches – which are also found in other European countries – but built in times gone by. In this „his“ church every believer was allowed and is allowed to go to his service. Today such magnificent buildings are hardly built anymore, – in the west. At most, even „shopping palaces“ banks and group corporate buildings or football stadiums, or – in a slightly more modest measure smaller scale, – private villas.

So the focus in on understanding the term „common good“ can be – either – that the individual, the individual is well, that he / she has no pain or problems and as much luxury and comfort as possible. Be happy (the main thing is – you’r happy!)
Or with „common good“ one can also have in mind, the well-being of a community, something communal, connecting and perhaps even obligatory.
That’s where the giant project Seidenstraße, “one belt one road” which originated in China, comes to my mind. As in America with the big railroad buildings, new worlds are opened up, with the small difference that here private investors in a capitalist system exploiting poor people – and often the environment – make their own private gains.
Of course, there would still be much to say about the common good, but it is not my intention to describe a „plan“ in all its details, but rather to give an impulse in one direction. The more precise formulation and design should and must be left to others.
However, one more thing must be mentioned: – For such a „change of system“ which I have in mind, there must inevitably be a radical change in our money and payment system. There may be several options or thinking models, but I do not think it appropriate to treat them here in detail. That would be an issue in itself again.

2 Comments on “The common good

  • Alfred Kath
    14. März 2018 at 09:37

    Tom Kath brother to Alfred, living in Australia
    Common Good
    We hear this term “The common good” used a lot, and as I have suggested in numerous other writings, we should ask ourselves who this “common” refers to. The vague idea that it includes all of us, still leaves the question of who us or we are. – All life forms on Earth? Humanity? Westerners? Only Jews and Americans? Or is it in reality just that particular group with which we identify?
    The other major error universally committed in the use of this term is the unquestioned sanctity of all human lives, currently termed the “Humanitarian” concern or perspective. The origins of this obsession is in the Abrahamic religions of Islam and Christianity who have attempted to embrace the whole of humanity in one pseudo Family, compared to the Jews for whom the sanctity and common good applies clearly only to Jews. In each case, the wellbeing of other lives or life forms not belonging to the specified group, are of vastly lesser consideration.
    For anyone, be they Jew, Christian, or member of a staunch family, to assume that their particular view of priorities must be shared by all of humanity, is as delusional as the man who assumes his wife shares his enthusiasm for sex, or my cat who assumes I want to pinch his biscuits.
    Without a clear vision of who we regard ourselves as common with, the term doesn’t make any sense, and if we try to include all those who do not consider themselves part of your “common” group, we commit the grave error of assuming that we can decide or rule in their best interests.
    For this and many other reasons, Humanitarianism is a gross and deceitful delusion.

  • Alfred Kath
    14. März 2018 at 10:19

    Tom, I disagree with you on this one.
    For the purpose of defining the Kath identity, your „narrow minded“ approach may be useful. I am however thinking on a different track.
    Yes indeed, „my common good“ does include all of humanity, even all life on earth, although there is an element of specific, particular interest. In my case it is the Eurasian Project – or specifically a German – Russian cooperation.
    A common good worth anything, must consider implication on all (life)
    That may be the problem with the Jewish system, or with the prevailing western, capitalistic system, which exploits and destroys the rest of the world in pursuit of their own individual interest or happiness and thereby in the end the basis of any living.
    The „common good“ of native tribes, be that red Indian, Aboriginal, Eskimo, Siberian or others, works in that way. That’s why they can survive thousands of years.
    The fact, that western civilization has swept away these old tribal cultures, must be seen and valued in a greater, longer term context, to be able to judge about success or otherwise. If, for instance a nuclear war destroys life or even only this western civilization, then the verdict would seem clear to me.
    And, of course, nature itself works that way.
    Even though fight of the individuals, or even species does exist, – it becomes dangerous and detrimental, if the „success“ of any participant in this life struggle, undermines or destroys the basis of life.

  • Schreibe einen Kommentar

    Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.