A reason for the turbulence

The world is agitated in struggles that seem unconnected, but deep down the imposition of moral and political concepts is disputed. A brief current sample: in two weeks there will be elections in the United States, where the force with which President Biden will finish his term will be decided; in Italy the right-wing government that won the elections amid scandals regarding its closeness to Putin takes shape; in the United Kingdom, the prime minister has resigned after announcing an economic plan that shook the markets; in Brazil, the second round of the elections takes place with a deeply divided country; in China, President Xi Jinping has launched an internal purge at the end of the Communist Party Congress, tightening control measures over the population; the war in Ukraine has tested the strength of governments in Europe, which are facing sharp rises in energy prices and the pressure of growing military spending; strikes have started in France; Germany faces itself when making decisions on the route of military strengthening; Japan holds referendums to annex islands opposite Russia; Taiwan arms itself against the Chinese threat, while North Korea tests its missiles over the Sea of ​​Japan.

In Mexico, the agitation is centered on an agenda focused on the internal vision. The crisis in the security and justice services continues unabated, and although economic measures are containing some of the effects of inflation, the threat of further shocks is growing. Political scandals have become as frequent as the police news that stains the screens red every day.

With this general panorama, it is worth asking: why has such agitation been generated in just a few months and at the same time? Although there is no single answer, we could point out that this more interdependent world has unleashed a global struggle to control technological, military and financial power that is unprecedented. But deep down there is a struggle to control the conception of what is right, what is good. There is a dispute over the moral ideas that claim to explain what is the content of valuable life. Of what the ancient Greeks called the search for happiness.

The right of each person to decide to make something valuable of his life is unquestionable in liberal nations. The problem is to define if the valuable life is equivalent to the possession of wealth; if it refers to a concept of solidarity or love of neighbor; or if it is a conception of political and social development in equality; or it is a completely internal question that requires searches towards spirituality. Whichever position is taken in this regard, it leads us to the question of whether it is the market that defines wealth as value, or whether it is a religious organization that dictates the correct moral content; or if it is the political party that determines the content of what is valuable; or if everyone inside him seeks an explanation that satisfies him to lead his life.

It is the thoughts that determine these postures, and taking over the communication that guides the thoughts is perhaps the maximum purpose of the efforts of the groups that compete for power in the world. The contents of communication represent the time that people use to feed their beliefs and knowledge and that is why it is so important to control the technology through which they flow and, of course, those who generate them, whether they are companies, governments or individuals.

The central point is to defend the area of ​​freedom sufficient to regulate one’s own criteria, formed based on that philosophy that sought happiness through reason and the enjoyment of life through the senses. The only truth imposed from the verticality of power or taking advantage of ignorance is a true crime, and right now the world is stirring to consider new ways of confronting the temptations of political and economic authoritarianism that imposes its concepts of morality.