Lo demás, es humo

Auster, Príncipe.

¿Sueñan los cinéfilos con Blade Runner?

Por fin, S.í.

Ciencia, libros e internet

Este sábado pasado venía en el suplemento Babelia, de El País, un especial sobre libros de ciencia, redactado por Javier Sampedro.
Comentaba algunos libros y soltaba algunas perlas:

En el fondo no se acaba de entender muy bien a qué viene tanta envidia proclamada al hombre del Renacimiento. La teoría del todo, francamente, pierde mucho magnetismo cuando todo son cuatro cosas de las que tres no despegan y la cuarta no aterriza, y el modelo del mundo que pudo alcanzar a formarse el hombre del Renacimiento, ese crisol de las culturas que tanta envidia parece suscitar, no serviría hoy ni para cruzar una calle. Puestos a ser un hombre del Renacimiento, no hay mejor época que el siglo XXI.

Hace tiempo que Freud mató la fantasía de omnisciencia junto a la de omnipotencia del pensamiento y la voluntad.
Será una fantasía de juventud, pero me muero de envidia por los hombres del Renacimiento y no hablo de Leonardo: Maquiavelo, Guicciardini...

O esta otra cita:

Es cierto que la tecnología reclama cada vez más especialistas, gente que sepa "cada vez más sobre cada vez menos hasta saberlo todo sobre nada" (cita aproximada, fuente olvidada o seca), pero lo que importa es que también tenemos cada vez mejores teorías, ideas que valen por mil jergas y por un millón de datos. El Big Brother era un catafalco. El verdadero poder no está en saber lo que hace la gente, sino en saber entenderlo. Y de eso, del entendimiento, es de lo que trata la ciencia. Lo demás son dificultades técnicas que deben resolver los especialistas, en sus horas de trabajo y sin hacer mucho ruido a ser posible.

Ortega y Gasset (aún con ese repunte de, a veces, aristocrático de la derecha) ya nos habló de la barbarie del "especialismo", donde sólo personas con un conocimiento verdaderamente omniabarcante podrían hacer cambiar de paradigma, ya sea filosófico o científico.
Ahí tenemos al tan manido ingeniero (salvando a Benet y a otros), ejemplo perfecto del que cada vez sabe más sobre menos, hasta entenderlo todo sobre nada... Quo exit?
Pero también habla del papel de la Wikipedia frente a la Enciclopedia Britannica y de cómo, por tanto, internet ha revolucionado la forma de entender la ciencia. Ésta, en materia bruta, está toda en la red. Pero el verdadero poder no está en saber lo que la gente hace, sino en entenderlo. La ciencia, con internet y con el esfuerzo de millones de internautas, ya es también didáctica. La selección natural que están sufriendo los libros de ciencia, es despiadada. La oferta manda, y en este caso, también demanda.

Literatura, in dubbio

Da la razón Gonzalo Hidalgo Bayal hoy a Julio César cuando dice:

Los cobardes mueren muchas veces antes de su propia muerte

y se la quita a Manuel Rivas cuando dice:

Escribir es sobreponerse al miedo

Todo en Santos Domínguez.

Más allá de esto, y todavía más allá de la Paradoja del Interventor (de la que siempre preferiré la Del Oeste Ediciones), una de las paradojas de la Literatura hoy es que hay escritores que te hacen dudar de ella.
Y otro día nos referiremos al papel del intelectual... pero para eso hablaremos antes de Diógenes de Sinope.

literatura

Definition of Best Seller

The books and films consumed by people who, frequently, do not consume any books or films.
Never a great deal has been a reason or an argument for anything.

Definición de Best Seller

Los libros y películas que consume la gente que, habitualmente, no consume libros ni películas.
Se ve que los 40 millones de personas que han comprado uno de los últimos best sellers más exitosos, no han comprado ningún otro libro más...
¿Desde cuándo un número es una razón?

Paradoja del Socialismo real

Todo era real menos el Socialismo

(Homenaje a Alfredo López Pulido)

The Real Socialism Paradox

Everything was real but the Socialism

(Homage to Alfredo López Pulido)

(Auto)crítica de la Cultura

¡Qué difícil es
cuando todo baja
no bajar también!

Los complementarios, Machado

La sentencia es de Omar

La vida es un tablero de ajedrez donde el Hado,
nos mueve cual peones, dando mates con penas,
en cuanto termina el juego, nos saca del tablero
y nos arroja a todos al cajón de la Nada.

Omar Khayyam

Laberintos y Polémicas

Fálix de Azúa sigue aquí desgranando su ácida crítica hacia Bustelo, los bustélicos y demás moluscos bivalvos que "se agarran a la roca del poder cuando nacen y ya no la sueltan hasta la muerte"...
De Vicenç Navarro hablaremos más porque, como dice Chou en su comentario, al margen de tener una web estupenda, habla de "lo que no se habla en este país".
El fin de semana lo encaramos con lo que acabo de recibir de manos de mis libreros: una preciosa edición de El Proceso de Kafka, en AKAL, con introducción, notas y propuesta didáctica de Gonzalo Hidalgo Bayal, El Mar de las Sirtes, de Gracq y La Virgen de los sicarios de Fernando Vallejo.
Lo que me llamó la atención es que vi un libro sobre Laberintos de Kerényi.
Con lo que le gustaban a Borges...
Borges estaba verdareramente obsesionado con varias cosas, entre las que se cuentan: los laberintos, el infinito, los espejos, los bucles...
La vida misma es un laberinto en el que a veces hay más de un minotauro y del que no conocemos con certeza si hay un centro, aunque sí que sólo tiene una salida...
Aunque quizá el laberinto sea interior... y el minotauro sea el que nosotros llevemos consigo...

También el jugador es prisionero,
(la sentencia es de Omar) de otro tablero,
De negras noches y de blancos días.

Dios mueve al jugador y éste, la pieza,
¿Qué Dios detrás de Dios la trama empieza,
de polvo y tiempo y sueño y agonía?

Ajedrez, Borges

Vicenç Navarro por Félix de Azúa

Por fin alguien de la talla del profesor Vicenç Navarro (aquí) empieza a salir de los recónditos túneles ciegos de los medios de información y persuasión (como le gusta decir a él).
Primero fue el premio anagrama de ensayo por Democracia incompleta, bienestar insuficiente (con el subtítulo: de lo que no se habla en nuestro país), que muchos devoramos con avidez.
Después vinieron otras obras, más técnicas en Ariel, pero siempre con el mismo mensaje de fondo.
Y ya hace cerca de un mes que terminé El subdesarrollo social de España, también en Anagrama (intentaré desgranar las claves que contiene poco a poco).
Pero ahora, en una semana (y por la alegría que me ha causado y por todo lo que me ha enseñado, le dedico este post), ha sido noticia dos veces de manos de otros dos queridos autores.
La primera, una reseña estupenda de Juan G. Bedoya en el suplemento de libros Babelia de EL PAÍS.
Y por otro lado, está la polémica de mi amado Felix de Azúa con Francisco Bustelo.
Éste le contesta a Azúa aquí; y Félix, le dedica a Bustelo dos perlas que reflejan todo su ingenio:
"No obstante, como Bustelo parece que no lee los evangelios si no traen bibliografía y me exige alguna, no tengo inconveniente en recomendarle, cuando le asalte un arrebato de lectura entre partido y partido, el último libro de Vicenç Navarro titulado El subdesarrollo social de España (Anagrama). Cuando lo haya leído, hablamos."
Gracias Félix y sobre todo, gracias, profesor Navarro.
Espero que post como éste ayuden a hablar un poco de aquello de lo que no se habla en nuestro país, efectivamente una democracia incompleta y con un estado del bienestar insuficiente.

Informarse cuesta: el reto informacional

Informarse cuesta, y ése es el precio de la democracia.
La revolución tecnológica, dicen; La Sociedad de la Información y de las Comunicaciones.
Si pensamos cómo era nuestra vida hace unos años, vemos que en general no es radicalmente distinta porque hallamos descubierto algo en un libro, en una conversación, en una vivencia...
Nuestras vidas cambian hoy por la tecnología: en eso de distingue nuestra vida diaria en el lapso de los años.
Pero, en general, los mass media no son máquinas de producir información, sino de reproducir los acontecimientos. Una cosa es la información y otra la formación, lo que nos capacita realmente para comprender. El paradigma es la televisión, que no nos pretende hacer entender un acontecimiento sino asistir a él.
Como dice Ignacio Ramonet un solo ejemplar del New York Times contiene más información que la que durante toda la vida podía adquirir una persona del s. XVII.
El proyecto humanista de leerlo todo y saberlo todo, incluso dentro de un campo determinado del saber, es ilusorio e inasequible. La información, que siempre ha sido díficil y costosa, es ahora superabundante y no deja de fluir y de manar por todo el planeta y en todos los ámbitos del conocimiento.
El exceso de información genera dos consecuencias: Superficialidad y Ruido. La gente, nos conformamos una opinión sobre todo y sobre cualquier cosa (la de la opinión pública), pero superficial en el mejor de los casos; el resto es, en el peor de ellos, ruido. Ruido de fondo, rún-rún.
La saturación de canales por los que recibimos y podemos recibir información es ilimitada: TV, radio, prensa escrita, SMS, e-mail, blogs, listas de correo, e-news, boletines, páginas web en general...
El esfuerzo de selección es hercúleo: cribar es el reto diario.
La saturación es la forma contemporánea de la censura.
Sucumbo ante la avalancha de datos, dossiers, papers, rss-feeds...
Revisar estos canales cada día consume mucho tiempo. El tiempo se va en los clicks de enviar cosas a la papelera.
La primera víctima de la "ERA DE LA INFORMACIÓN" es la VERDAD.

160 caracteres

...tiene un SMS. Usarlo eficientemente genera un lenguaje propio. Esto a su vez, genera una nueva cultura. Toda revolución tecnológica crea una nueva generación cultural.
La dialéctica modernismo (sus valores) - modernización (los procesos que los crearon), si entendemos esta visión pastoral como un todo, hará que estas generaciones culturales de origen tecnológico comparten una idea delmundo y de las cosas; una cosmovisión.
Desarrollarán opiniones, muchas de ellas conjuntas.
Así fue con los baby boomers, la generación X, los mileuristas...
El móvil, las consolas, en fin: The thumb generation. ¿Algún miembro autorizado quiere decir algo?

Tendencias

Ahora con Google Trends podemos saber las palabras que el mundo busca en internet: el número de búsquedas de una palabra a lo largo del tiempo.
Por fin podremos comparar las cosas que nos preocupan:
"Cartuja de Parma" Vs "Rojo y Negro", o por ejemplo: comparar "Philip Roth", con "Paul Auster" y "Don DeLillo", donde mi DeLillo sale mal parado.


O por ejemplo, Marx vs. Capitalism



Dejo como ejercicio comparar:
"Dios" Vs "Ilustración" Vs "Dinero", "Sexo" Vs "Papa", etc. etc. etc.

Courage

Certainly, it always requires some courage to change your plans, the way you lived, your full existence; but I have always believed in the quality of humans about changing their entire life: Re-inventing yourself again and again it is something not everybody is able to do, or it is not ready to do. It needs courage.
Notwithstanding the latter, the change of plans is something that in many cases has been latent deep down those people: I prefer to contemplate them as men whose interest are diverse:I do not believe in labels, or let's say that I would like to act as they would not exist...
People value the intelligence of the individuals.
I value more the moral attitude of individuals, for controversial and contradictory it could be.
But what it is priceless in a human being, regardless his intelligence or moral and ethical behaviour, it's his ability to get self-detached of the weight of his prejudices; to break off with the burden of his darkest fears and to overcome them.

Marshall Berman and Marx, in China

Taken from Jeff Weintraub and Dissent
The PhD Thesis I am developing deals with the whole work of Marshall Berman.

To: Members of PoliSci. 181-601 (Modern Political Thought)
From: Jeff Weintraub
Re: Marx in China (2006)

Marshall Berman in Dissent (SPRING 2006)

[This article is adapted from a paper given at a conference (July 8-10, 2005) on “Cultural Imaginaries of Modernity: China on the Global Stage Since the Late 1970s,” at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PRC. The authorities did not allow it to be published as part of the proceedings. As we go to press, the Dissent Web site, which had been blocked in the PRC, has been unblocked for the time being. —Eds.]

Marx in China: Modern Arts, Modern Conflicts, Modern Workers
By Marshall Berman
Spring 2006

In our day everything seems pregnant with its contrary . . . .Some parties may wish to get rid of modern arts, in order to get rid of modern conflicts . . . .We know that to work well, the new-fangled forces of society [need only] to be mastered by new-fangled men—and such are the working men. They are as much the invention of modern time as machinery itself.
—Karl Marx, Speech on the Anniversary of the People’s Paper, 1856

THE GREAT DEMONSTRATIONS in Tiananmen Square in 1989 were powerful arguments with a government that celebrated the fall of Maoist authoritarianism but never recognized its people as free people or citizens. Today’s Chinese government seems as adamant as yesterday’s in keeping closed the doors to democracy and human rights. But today’s government has been brilliantly successful in opening up the nation’s economy and in enabling China to participate in global economic life. In the last decade, China’s economy has become the most dynamic in the world. The factories of southern China are now the world’s leading producers not only of relatively simple articles such as clothing and shoes, but of increasingly sophisticated machines: personal computers, DVD players, photocopiers, digital cameras. Not only has China mastered techniques of mass production; it has shown an impressive flair for high finance. In the summer of 2005, the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Company made an $18.5 billion cash-in-hand takeover bid for Unocal, one of the largest oil companies in America. The deal was blocked by political pressures in the United States. But a whole new deference has now appeared in Western discussions of China. “A New China Rises,” said a Time magazine headline in June 2005, as it noted, “The People’s Republic has embraced the modern world as never before. Is that cause for celebration or anxiety?”; “Chinese Strength, U.S. Weakness,” proclaimed the New York Times in the same month, while in July 2005 it asked, “Who’s Afraid of China, Inc?” and described “The New Power Brokers, Born in China, Closing Deals for U.S. Firms” and “The China Syndrome on Wall Street.” Meanwhile, China has developed a brilliant film culture, a cinema reminiscent of Italian Neo-Realism, which has brought the world a vision of both the marvelous expanse of Chinese streets and the internal pressures that drive Chinese lives. China’s power surge and rapid development form one of the most exciting stories of the late twentieth century.

Twenty years ago, Deng Xiaoping erected huge billboards throughout China that proclaimed, “Development is the Irrefutable Argument.” The way Deng’s slogan is translated today, China’s spectacular growth rates not only win the argument, they end the argument. The government speaks in a triumphalist discourse that is actually a remarkable echo of the language of nineteenth-century England, in the heyday of what historians later learned to call “the Industrial Revolution.” England was enjoying tremendous industrial growth and taking over more and more of the world each year. Its mass media were united in an orgy of self-celebration. And yet its level of human suffering was alarmingly high. So much of its prosperity depended on the energy of its industrial working class, yet so much of this class lived in poverty and squalor. Victorian England was the world leader in productive power, but also in human misery. Plenty of people were aware of this mass misery. But most of them, when they thought critically, denounced the whole of modern life: they wished “to get rid of modern arts, in order to get rid of modern conflicts.” Marx was more complex: he wanted to affirm and to celebrate human progress, but also to confront its outrageous human costs. His thinking could be called a discourse of contradiction.

In our day everything seems pregnant with its contrary. Machinery, gifted with the power of shortening and fructifying human labor, we behold starving and overworking it. The new-fangled sources of wealth, by some weird spell, are turned into sources of want. The victories of art seem bought by loss of character.

There are good reasons to say that “everything is pregnant with its contrary” in China today and to look for a language that can grasp and penetrate its inner contradictions. It is ironic that, for decades, a travesty of Marxism was imposed on a backward, peasant China that couldn’t possibly digest it. It is only now, as China goes through dramatic and explosive development, that Marx’s discourse of contradiction can be a powerful critical vision of its real life.

When I make this argument, I speak as one formed by the American and European New Left. Our movement, post-Stalin and anti-Stalinist, was born in 1956, when I was young. Today, half a century later, maybe we should be called the Used Left. There may not be many of us today; probably there never were many of us. But we have something fruitful to say. For us, Marx’s vision of modern subjectivity is his central theme. He shares Hegel’s idea that the “principle of the modern world is freedom of subjectivity.” We argue that Marx builds on this idea and deepens it. Freedom of subjectivity is the vital center of Marx’s critique of modern capitalism. On his honeymoon in Paris in 1844, he imagined communism as the culmination of bourgeois humanism. In “Private Property and Communism,” he conceives his historical subject as “the rich human being”: “established society produces man in the entire richness of his being, produces the rich man profoundly endowed with all the senses, as its enduring reality.” This “being in need of a totality of human life-activities” is bound to feel alienated and crushed by capitalism; he is bound to demand a better life than this. In the Communist Manifesto, he defines communist society as one where “the free development of each is the basis for the free development of all.”

MARX PRESUPPOSES the Enlightenment and its central ideas, universal human rights and political democracy. He presupposes the English, the American, the French revolutions; he sees communism as a way to make good on their broken promises of democratic citizenship and human rights. Among the generations that made the Russian and Chinese revolutions, there were millions of men and women who imagined the triumph of those revolutions, in 1917 and in 1949, as a chance to fulfill those promises in their own lives. But the state and party elites that took control of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China were at best indifferent to those freedoms and more often aggressively hostile to them. Masses of Soviet and Chinese people yearned for fulfillment of the promises of modern life. But the new elites denied that any such promises had ever been made. The political models that meant most to them were peasant communes, religious monasteries, military empires, all of them overpowering collectivities that crushed the individual self. The communism of the rulers was formulated most clearly and crudely in Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book of the 1960s: “The self is nothing, the collective is everything.” What Marx meant by communism can’t even be imagined until Stalinism and Maoism are overthrown. Only then can modern subjects emerge and act.

Marx’s vision of modern life is saturated in irony. His sense of irony is built into the way he uses that word contradiction. From the moment that modern subjects start to act, he says, their actions are loaded with irony and contradiction. Marx’s first great irony is tragic: Modern capitalism promises subjective freedom, but it alienates people from themselves. The pressures of market society twist the self into a cash machine. (Some of these machines bring forth a lot more cash than others.) However, it turns out that the workers have the power to overcome their alienation, thanks to Marx’s second great irony, which is comic. In the Manifesto, he writes,

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society . . . .Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relationships . . . are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is forced to face . . . his real conditions of life and his relations with his fellow men.

Capitalism is the one social system that oppresses people in a way that actually makes them smarter and stronger. Growing up and trying to live in the midst of uninterrupted disturbance, everlasting uncertainty and agitation, everything melting, all workers get a compulsory free education in what old American slang calls “the school of hard knocks.” For workers to organize, to create radical unions, is not just a political triumph, but a triumph of subjectivity. The great civil rights hymn “We Shall Overcome” tells us we can build a new world if only we can remain united and stay true to ourselves. That song began its life in the eighteenth-century “Great Awakening” and lived nearly two centuries, as an American Protestant hymn called “I Shall Overcome.” Somehow, in the radical ferment of the 1930s, “I” became “We,” and the song became a hymn of collective yearning. Just as Marx had hoped, the free development of each blended into the free development of all.

Among Chinese intellectuals today, there seems to be a great melancholy and nostalgia for China’s all too brief “Enlightenment,” from the fall of the Gang of Four to the great demonstrations at Tiananmen Square and a sense of helpless bitterness toward the post-Tiananmen crackdown on thought. People often mention the 1990s slogan—and directive—“Farewell to Utopia.” They feel the pressure of cultural bullying directed at any sort of independent thought. Authority figures and mass media convey a message something like this: “China’s boom will go on forever; it is its own justification. It is dangerous to think about what it means or about how its benefits should be shared or about how men and women should live. Brains have an important function, to design technical improvements and arrange policy implementation, not to worry about the meaning of life. You had dialogues about all the great ideas in the 1980s, and you know where they led. We do not want any more of that.” This language reminds me a lot of the “McCarthyism” in which I grew up, an age of cultural repression in the midst of an economic boom, when intellectuals were told they had better Shut Up and Keep Off the Grass.

What has this to do with Karl Marx? The Communist Manifesto has a couple of trenchant sentences that can help us see the connection. “The bourgeoisie,” Marx says, “has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the doctor, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-laborers.”

In this vision intellectuals are still there, but they are demoted, deskilled, disabled, pushed down into the proletariat, where they live by selling their brains for purely technical uses. But for Marx, to recognize yourself as a proletarian, a member of “the modern working class,” is just the first chapter in a dialectical story. In his narrative, just as in some of the greatest works of world literature (Oedipus, King Lear), the hero is thrown down from the top to the very bottom of society, only to rise again. The man who is “stripped of his halo,” of his power over old ideas, develops a power to generate new ideas. It is a dreadful fate to be “proletarianized.” And yet, capitalism has the ironic power to oppress people in a way that makes them smart and strong. So the declassed intellectual can learn a new way to see society as a whole, to establish connections among human beings that have a wider horizon and mobilize deeper emotions than bankers or bureaucrats can conceive. As he “gets his head together,” nourishes his bruised subjectivity, he can learn a new solidarity with other subjects who are as bruised as he. Together, they can reach a point where they can say, “We shall overcome.” They can imagine a world where “the free development of each is the basis of the free development of all.” Can they, can anybody, actually create such a world? I don’t know. But the power to at least imagine a world where people are free subjects together instead of cash machines can nourish and enrich the world we live in now. As China becomes covered with cash machines, the story of Karl Marx in China may be just beginning.

MANY SPEAKERS in our conference told us about various polarizations between China and “the West,” and about China’s experience as a “latecomer” to modernity. This body of discourse goes back to the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution. It makes up a great deal of modern German and Russian culture, Chinese and Japanese culture, Indian and Latin American culture as well. But it seems to me that in a China that has become not only “factory to the world” but global dealmaker of the world, this discourse has worn out. China has arrived. Its tremendous dynamism makes it the world’s outstanding example of modernity. Like England in Marx’s time, like the United States in 1945, China today IS the modern. To say this is just a beginning, but we can’t reach understanding without it. If we take Karl Marx as our guide to modernity, he will encourage us to focus on every society’s inner contradictions. The inner contradictions of Chinese society today are extensive and impressive. Its creativity is built on a working class that is freer than ever, and yet enslaved. It seems to combine some of the worst features of capitalism and of communism, exposing the masses to the ever greater risks and insecurities of a global market, even as it paralyzes them from organizing and acting for themselves through an overpowering state. No social system quite like this has ever existed. When will Chinese intellectuals explore the mysteries and contradictions at the heart of their own social order? A good start for them might be to recognize that they are in the modern working class themselves.
---------------
Marshall Berman is the author of All That Is Solid Melts Into Air, Adventures in Marxism, and, most recently, On the Town: One Hundred Years of Spectacle in Times Square. He teaches at the City College of New York and the City University of New York. All quotations by Karl Marx are taken from the Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker.

Pecunia non olet (bis)

Vespasiano: "No huele, y sin embargo, es producto de la orina..."
Reprehendenti filio Tito, quod etiam urinae vectigal commentus esset, pecuniam ex prima pensione admovit ad nares, sciscitans, "num odore offenderetur";
et illo negante, "atqui", inquit, "e lotio est".
Suetonio, Vespasiano, 23, 3

Pecunia non olet

¿Algo habrá que decir sobre el “Príncipe de Austurias” que le van a dar a Gates y su mujer, no?
(aquí) “por el ejemplo que representan de generosidad y filantropía ante los males que siguen asolando al mundo” dice aquí el jurado…
Lo que no dice el jurado, es que ése 10% de gente más rica del mundo, es la más que probable causante de una parte del sufrimiento del resto.
Qué vergüenza: ¿economía de vasos comunicantes? ¿el dinero en el mundo es un “bien escaso”? ¿lo que unos tienen de más es lo que a los demás les falta?
El mercado es el mercado, se dice; pero ya sabemos que nuestro nivel de vida huele bastante a podrido.
Creo q no hace falta ser un genio para cerciorarse que el lema económico liberal por excelencia “a la larga todos ricos” (incluido el tercer mundo) se halla abocado al fracaso.
La tarea propia del intelectual es contribuir en última instancia a una revolución moral.
Y yo hago esta pregunta (moral o pragmático-transcendental) a los miembros del jurado:
¿con qué derecho detentamos una riqueza que ni nos corresponde ni necesitamos realmente?

TIEMPO, TRABAJO Y DINERO

Trabajar para comprar tiempo.
Eduardo Mendoza y Gonzalo Hidalgo Bayal estarían de acuerdo conmigo.
¿seremos muchos?