(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
What would you say if I poured gasoline on my dog, my cat, my wife – and then lit it? There is hardly any doubt about the answer. But when it comes to profits and "business," what we all see as immoral, moral. I assume that the shareholders and employees of Dow Chemicals would immediately call the police if they saw me firing on others – animals or people. But what else is Dow doing, and why can't an owner of Dow shares accuse him of making money for raising children? asks Jan Myrdal in this article. And he himself answers.
I have a dog. I have a cat. I have a wife. I have children. Am a good citizen. Now I will get my aquarium too. 112 liter. In that I will have plants and fish. I have to look at them. I mow my lawn. I pick rips. I am a good citizen.
If one morning I was gripped by lonely desires, poured gasoline on my dog, poured gasoline on my cat, poured gasoline on my wife, poured gasoline on my children, poured gasoline on my aquarium, poured gasoline on my lawn, poured gasoline on over my rips bushes. What a bonfire it would be if I looked on!
And how upset should the land not be! They can even think of your headlines and pictures and daily revenue elements. If I thought I was doing this for fun, I would be declared psychotic pretty soon. Then I would be able to look at life from the sixth department.
I totally agree with the moral assessment of actions such as burning up their dog, their cat, their wife, their children, their aquarium plants, their aquarium fish, their lawn, their bushes. I also agree that people who act like this are sick.
However, I do not agree that there is news. Nor do I agree with those who believe that such a thing must be punished. To act that way is to be sick and need care.
To further reassure those readers who feel badly affected by the idea of the stench of burning dogs, cats, wives, children, aquarium plants, aquarium fish, lawns, and riparian shrubs, I would like to emphasize that I am not just against burning up my own dogs, etc. , but also by burning up other people's dogs, etc., and for that I do not agree that humans can be considered "mine" or "your" people. So I am in principle opposed to pouring gasoline on and since igniting dogs, etc., and this basic belief is probably shared by the overwhelming majority of readers.
Now! Then it is determined. Let's see where it leads:
On the corner of Banérgatan and Linnégatan in Stockholm, a large world company has its office. It is a decent company that trades with the Soviet Union and also with Switzerland, its shareholders, directors, local directors, PR men, employees are all decent people. I assume that each of them would pick up the phone and call the police if they saw me making serious preparations to burn my dog, etc.
But it is DOW CHEMICAL that is located on this street corner in Stockholm. DOW CHEMICAL produces, among other things, napalm. Its shareholders receive dividends on the napalm sold for use. Then no one can claim that they enjoy burning children (they only profit from it), and then no one can claim that they are anything other than decent people.
For notice what has happened: When it comes to profit and "business", what we all see as immoral, moral. Either we can then say that this is correct. There is a private morale for citizens and a higher morale for people who have the advantage of working on the corner of Banérgatan and Linnégatan in Stockholm. Or we can say that it is capitalism that is criminal and immoral. The fact that you can cut coupons on burning children does not make child burning moral, nor can you evade your responsibility for child burning by claiming that it only happens under the iron-fisted laws of profit and on the conditions of free competition for the free world struggle for the private initiative's high principle. Because it stinks just as bad of burning children, whether it is me who burns my children in my garden or it is responsible officials from the USA who burn children in Asia.
Of course, one should not say that. Our moral ministers have expressed their deep disgust at the people who are demonstrating – against the burning of children. And if you ask how the ministers intend to close DOW's office in Stockholm, they answer:
- Trade and politics must not be mixed up.
- We must think of the country's (read profit) best. It would not be good for us if we banned DOW from operating in this country.
What's even more interesting: Already a direct question to the employees within DOW if they do not realize that they work in an organization that makes money from burning children, would be contrary to the modified morality.
To protect DOW and shareholders and directors of DOW and similar companies, special laws have been made. It is illegal to accuse a shareholder in DOW of making money from burning children. To ensure that these laws are complied with, the state has hired police with batons and firearms. To punish those who break these laws, the state has hired judges and prison guards and had large stone houses built with high walls.
So what does this show? That the profit-driven business community and the private property rights of factories and companies are in conflict with the interests and moral judgments that the overwhelming majority of the Swedish people – like all the people of the world – recognize as theirs.
That the state that claims to represent the will and power of the people actually represents the interests of profit and ensures the safety of child burners.
What will be the conclusion? To take the factories and companies from the current owners and run them not for the profits, but for the interests of the people.
To create a state that does not protect the child burners against the people, but the people against the child burners.
Is not this difficult?
It is very difficult. But since it is necessary, it will be implemented.
