Has Society rights

over the wealth that is produced

AND HOW MUCH?

The inequality in today's society has reached absurd heights and the
process of accumulation of wealth continues accelerated. In 2017 8 people
held as much wealth holds the poorest half of the population of the earth (3,6
billion people). 82% of the wealth created in 2017 at a global level, ended up
in the hands of the 1% of richest people on the planet, while the poorest have
not seen any increase in income. The real incomes of the poorest inhabitants
of the planet have grown by just $ 3 a year for the last 25 years.
In the U.S., 2017 the 3 richest hold wealth equivalent to the poorest
half of the population. In 2014, the richest 1% held 39% of the national
wealth, compared with the 22% it accounted for in 1980.
In Germany, 10% of the population controls 40% of the wealth.
In Europe, with elements of 2016, 10% of the population owns 37%
of the total income.
5.3 trillion dollars held by the 500 richest in the world (2017), is
equivalent to the sum of the debts 120 countries of the earth.
In Africa there are huge reserves of oil, there is 98% of the world
production of diamonds, and 77% of the world's gold production. Africa but
(but...) plagued by hunger, poverty and utter misery.
Joseph Stiglitz, economist, Nobel prize of Economy: " Inequality and
poverty among children is a moral trivialization. The right argue that poverty
is the result of laziness and the wrong choices. But the kids don't choose
their parents".
In America 1 in 4 children lives in poverty. In Greece, 1 in 6.

This monstrous and obscene inequality which oppresses the lives of

the people, in order to be accepted, accompanied by an equally incredible
propaganda of its justification, where extremely important role plays the
concept of the framework of the perspective (framing). The investigation
showed that the perceptions and judgments of us are influenced to a huge
extent by the context in which is placed the analysis. The inequality is
framed so that it seems fair or at least acceptable, or is left to be understood
that the price of the restriction of the inequality, it would be heavy.
Along with the monstrous and constantly accelerated increase in the
concentration of wealth, we have and a huge increase in the social (or
relative) impoverishment of the people, namely the mismatch between the
level of life and at the level of social needs, which increase in parallel with
the gigantic increase of the productivity of labour and left unsatisfied, and
that creates a huge and unaffordable problems the people of (this regardless
of the utter misery, which can be reduced). We are not only talking about
increasing needs in education, in housing, in health, in the ordinary sense.
We have an epidemic of mental disease (in England 1 in 4 adults has been
diagnosed with a mental illness - and is not the only country). The mental
illness is fixed with deprivation, low income, unemployment, low education,
worse physical health. Cancer patients, are suffering from a disease that 90%
of the harmful factors that cause, is environmental (ie. industrial, more
correctly, capitalist).
The voices against this absurdity, the shame and degradation of
mankind, they sound like a whisper in the river of "information" and
requests who contain reach to the "Tobin tax", a "fairer" redistribution of
wealth, or accept with gratitude the charity of the rich.
Has Society rights over the produced wealth and how much?
"The technology works with science and science with the technology
to move forward, so it's intertwined. For a technological breakthrough is
necessary theoretical knowledge from different sciences. For the scientific
discovery, it is necessary technological equipment" [School textbook for
Technology].
Each i.e. the inventor and the innovator, to create innovation, has been
based on the huge volume of knowledge and progress that has been achieved
humanity. Isaac Newton put it right and proportionate: "If I was able to see
most off all, it is because I stood on shoulders of giants".
People i.e. like Bill Gates, for example, reached outstanding
achievements, only and only because they were supported by a high level of
education, scientific infrastructure, and collective institutions, which allowed
them to acquire the necessary knowledge and experiment.
However, apart from these visible and traceable procedures, upon
which the progress of humanity it is based, there are other, more
fundamental, complex, lengthy and non-visible, for which an idea gives us
Friedrich Engels:
"The concept of number is an "invention" of someone wise, only if
you see it cut off from the society and its development. But it would be wise
to measure, had a capacity of abstraction from all other properties of things,
and retaining only the quantitative element.
This ability of the abstraction acquired humanity in a long line of
thousands of years of action and reaction with nature, experience. If you
look at it this way, then the concept of number appears as assimilation and
abstraction of the logic of nature, by the act of man".
So when the innovators are claiming the tribute, the prices and the
reward of the society, we should be thinking and that they ought TO BE
SECURELY GRATEFUL THESE to the society, which gave them the
possibility, by clicking on the toil and the knowledge accumulated by
humanity, to express their creativity and to confirm their personality. Or let's
innovate outside of society...
The narrative i.e. of the elite and those "they should be grateful
mankind", is limited within the walls of a factory or a business. But
mankind, in its entire extent and historicity, even to the utmost limits, always
invent and create/produced and continues to invent and to create/produce.
Not of course in the sense of "scientists" "economists", but in a broad sense
of the contribution in the evolution of mankind. The concept of
production/creation embraces every human activity and every resource of
humanity, even the most extreme limits. Because, what is the evolution of
the "illegitimate of kalogria", born in a cave and evolved into a revolutionary
leader of 1821, Georgios Karaiskakis. Or Steven Hawking, the totally
paralyzed leading scientist? You can think of countless other such extreme
examples. Does this type of creators, and such activities have less impact on
productivity? Contribute less to the "GDP"? Let's say if they want...
Facing things with such a perspective, we can understand that the
language (which is the result of cooperation, of communication, of work and
of the fights of each society and never a result of the inspiration of some of
the innovative or individuals) and the literate and educated people, the
carriers of the language (total, i.e. the members of the society), are the
fundamental tool (or factory), on which steps and creates each
inventor/innovator of the inspiration, or the private the production and his
property. These are not the "framework" for to rob and to oppress the elite
people, but it is inheritance, property and rights of mankind, that no
generation may concede to individuals. On this, rests everything that is
created or "produced" in society. On this is found the right of society to
everything compose the wealth of mankind.
Besides, if anything has become obvious now (remember what
"scientific" way they used to reduce our wages), is that the economic
practice, it is not a science like physics or chemistry, but is imbued to the
core of the policy. This is describes and explains great, George Καραµπελιάς
("The new era of global capitalism"):
 "To understand today's stock market phenomenon and the entrance in
the era of the "virtual economy", we need to introduce the notion of the
"social factory" and even on a planetary scale.
Large companies don't post just goodwill from specified workers, but
from the entire planet, through a fabulous transfer of resources that allows
the stock market and the incessant movements of capital. This posting of
goodwill is not carried out through direct employment relationship, but
through the inclusion of the whole of the planet in the hegemony of capital,
and indeed of the west.
We are in front a new system of posting goodwill at national and
supranational level, a system for the immediate change of society into an
object of exploitation, where the financial flows, monopoly of knowledge-
information and the military power changed in a direct factor utilization of
capital. The utilization of capital alter, almost directly, in to a political
element".

If people cease to accept as reasonable the current situation and

realize their rights, the system will collapse. Because over 9/10 the
sovereignty of the elite is based on propaganda and corruption, and only in
the 1/10, to the power and the guns. If the propaganda collapse, will be
nullified and the effectiveness of violence.
The great battle so, must be given about these hidden beliefs and
ideas, that no one discusses today. People need to be aware of their rights.
They'll probably blame us for "populists". Uh, yeah! We're populists.
TO THE NTH DEGREE! Because we are concerned for all peoples, all over
the planet. I mean, we're HUMANITARIANS! Let's blame us...

15 October 2018
George Papanikolaou