Sistema

The Unwavering Faith of Servants

The wealthiest man in the history of humanity (according to TIME magazine and academics) visited the Middle East only once. It was in 1324 when the Islamic Empire was still what, centuries later, Westerners would call the First World to refer to themselves. Various witnesses, including Syrian historians, detailed the impression the mighty king of Mali left on his year-long pilgrimage.

Mansa Musa crossed Africa along its most extended parallel, carrying so much gold in his coffers that, upon reaching Egypt, his generosity to the poor he met along the way produced an inflation that lasted ten years.

Four centuries later, the Irish banker Richard Cantillon discovered that the issuance of money always benefited the rich closest to power since they could buy and invest before the wave of inflation reached them. Unlike modern inflations, where money creation occurs at the top of the social pyramid, and its creators call it “the tax of the poor,” the inflation that Musa produced must not have been so bad for the poor since those who received the gold first benefited before the inflation reached those at the top. A rarity in the history of economics, about which I am unaware of academic discussions.

At the end of the 19th century, William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate supported by the left-wing Populist Party and by the unions of the United States, proposed issuing and distributing silver dollars to get out of the deep recession. Banks and large corporations criminalized the proposal because the measure would create inflation. For farmers and indebted workers, the word inflation did not scare them—quite the opposite. More significant inflation would benefit them. Not to mention a redistribution of the wealth accumulated in a few families during the so-called Gilded Age that preceded the Progressive Era.

The banks hired the writer Theodore Roosevelt, later known as the gentlemanly president with the big stick, to paint Bryan as a radical who wanted to turn workers against the rich. Intimidated by the mass rhetoric, businessmen hung signs outside their factories warning that if young Bryan were elected president, their factories would close. Bryan lost the election, the first where mass corporate propaganda showed its teeth.

Mansa Musa and his prosperous tourist fortune traveled protected by an army of guards and ten thousand slaves. Even today, there are discussions about the number of slaves, though none about who they were. Civilized Western literature calls other people’s servants slaves and their own slaves employees. Those slaves, like today’s wage slaves, were not slaves by race, nor was their slavery hereditary, two perversions that the West added not many centuries ago to justify the buying and selling of human beings as if they were donkeys or financial shares. In any case, each slave or servant of Musa carried a small fortune of almost two kilos of gold.

I have always been impressed by this fact, now distant, even though it was not a rarity. The guards and his servants could have taken Musa prisoner without effort. They could have killed him or abandoned him in the sands of the Sahara, where he would have perished by unknown efforts. In Mali, in absentia, an even larger conspiracy could have replaced him from power, and his incalculable fortune in gold could easily have been distributed among the newly rich or the people themselves.

Although none of this would have been unthinkable for history, judging by the fact it was for his subjects. What prevented them from giving in to individual temptation or collective justice?

Mansa Musa was protected by the belief of his subjects, a protection that no modern weapon could have provided him on his journey from Mali to Egypt and then to Mecca. This belief in a myth of power is probably responsible for the status quo of any social and economic system throughout history, including the capitalist system.

For centuries, from Father Bartolomé de las Casas, from Simon Bolivar to the anti-slavery activists in the United States, slaves participated in the resistance to their liberation. What prevented them from rebelling against the minority of their masters? Partly, the whip and firearms were in white hands, as was proven in a few rebellions, but these failed because they were not massive. They were not massive because the preaching and the moralizing of the white master were more effective than his whip when they were successful, as in Haiti in 1804, they were shattered by the silent presence of the imperial cannons of France and the United States.

A slave rebellion did not initiate the end of shackle slavery, but by the activism of a few free citizens and by the inconvenience of the old slave system for the new industrial masters of the north who preferred wage-earning Slavs as a cheaper and more convenient alternative for production and consumption. The fear of the master, the blind faith in a leader, in a system, is only broken by an imbalance that rhetoric cannot mend.

A second observation follows from this story of Musa. Despite his massive accumulation of wealth, his time and even contemporary history remember him as a generous leader. This does not mean that Musa was an exceptionally kind man, any more than Bill Gates is for his philanthropic hobby. It means that humanity has always valued generosity and altruism as crucial values for the survival of the species and collective happiness. Generosity, benevolence, compassion, and empathy for the needy have always been superior values since the origins of civilization and, indeed, since the Paleolithic. Otherwise we would not be here today, me writing these words and you reading them.

Since biblical and pre-war times, wealth accumulation by a few in a town with poor people was considered a sin. Prophets like Amos, like Jesus, were demonized for denouncing this form of social injustice. Wise governors were those who canceled the unpayable debts of those below, with that gesture of the torch that later became the Statue of Liberty in Manhattan, on the verses that say “give me the poor of this world,” another monument to modern emptiness.

In other words, our time is characterized by a historical anomaly, such as the valuation of selfishness and cruelty as virtues and solidarity and altruism, as Milei said in Washington (“social justice is violent”) and as writers like Ryan Ann had formulated in 1964: “evil is compassion, not selfishness.”

All that our time has demonized as weaknesses of the individual and immoralities of society while elevating psychopaths like Elon Musk, drug-addicted Nazis with almost as much money as Argentina and more than Malaysia or Colombia, to the category of heroes.

Jorge Majfud, January 2025

Odpusti Nam Naše Grehe

ODPUSTI NAM NAŠE GREHE

Jorge Majfud

Translated by/prevedel Jurij Kunaver.

Ediciones Baile del Sol

NAUČITI SE ODPUŠČATI

Nekoč mi je pisatelj Mauricio Langón povedal anekdoto o svoji družini.

Eden od Mauricijevih vnukov je udaril svojo babico.

– Babice se ne tepe! – je rekla strogo otrokova mati. – Opraviči se ji!

Otrok se ji je opravičil.

– Že dobro, Juanma – je spravljivo rekla babica. – Vem, da tega nisi storil nalašč. Oprostim ti.

Kasneje je Juan Manuel spet zamahoval s plastičnim loparjem. Mati ga je prestregla, rekoč:

– Babice se ne tepe!

Juan Manuel ji je, z bistroumnostjo, ki je še ni pokvarila izumetničenost, pojasnil:

– Potem se ji bom opravičil.

VSA TEŽA ZAKONA

27. JULIJA DOPOLDNE so časopisi in televizija objavili novico o nenavadnem zločinu, ki je bil storjen v Sayagu. Dva reveža sta ubila tretjega reveža, verjetno ponoči prejšnjega dne. Mnoge je novica presenetila, četudi jih ni vznemirila. Logično in bolj običajno je ubijati zaradi denarja, časti ali kakšne družinske stiske. Napol človek, živeč na mestnem odpadu, ne more imeti nobene od teh reči.

Nikoli se ni natančno izvedelo za motiv pretepa; nikogar več niso zanimale  podrobnosti, potem ko je sodnik morilcema naložil deset let ječe. Toda jaz, sodnik, tega primera nisem nikoli čisto pozabil. Nekaj let pozneje sem obsojenca obiskal v ječi. To sem izpeljal skoraj naskrivaj, kot vse ostalo, ker ljudje radi rečejo, da sem naklonjen kriminalcem in ne žrtvam. Če bi danes moral ponovno izreči sodbo, bi jima naložil še dodatnih deset let ječe; ne zaradi pravičnosti, temveč iz usmiljenja. Upam, da mi bo uspelo to pojasniti.

Umrli revež je bil doktor Enríquez, ki je živel kot brezdomec zadnjih šest mesecev. Eusebio Enríquez je bil zdravnik kirurg in je izgubil svojo starejšo hčer med operacijo, 24. januarja, ko ji je sam poskušal pomagati pri neozdravljivi bolezni. Kirurg ni imel razlogov, da bi samega sebe krivil zaradi smrti svoje hčere, toda razlogi niso bili pomembni, ker se mu je nenadoma pomračil um in je neke noči odšel od doma. Prečkal je mesto, ko je padal januarski dež, in pričel životariti blizu železniških tirov v Sayagu. Pustil si je rasti brado, zamazal je oblačila, naglo je shujšal, njegov obraz je postajal vedno bolj mračen in upadel, kar mu je dajalo neprepoznaven videz hindujskega sanjasina. Živel je tako na robu, da je nehal obstajati za oblasti in za družbo, zato ga nikoli niso mogli najti. Kmalu je spoznal Facunda in Barbarrojo, moška, ki sta ga kasneje ubila z železnimi palicami.

Ne Facundo ne Barbarroja nista bila zločinca, vendar so se ju ljudje bali, ali bolje rečeno, so se jima izogibali, kot bi bila revščina nalezljiva. Dokler so obstajali ljudje, ki so verjeli v Boga ali v pekel, je bila tudi miloščina. Toda kmalu nato so dobra vest in davek slabe vesti upadli in nesrečnika sta postala del narodnega nezavednega, skrita sramota uspešnega oziroma stremuškega gospodarstva.

Ta dva moška sta živela skoraj nomadsko življenje. Prebivala sta po vseh oziroma v kateremkoli kotičku stare železniške postaje in pri tem vedno pazila, da ju ni stražar našel spati v katerem izmed opuščenih vagonov ali v skladišču za železje, kamor sta se zatekla v deževnih dneh. »Ta kraj je žalosten – si je rekel Enríquez – ; dobro je, da onadva tega ne vesta.«

Toda, ponavljam, noben od njiju ni bil sposoben ubiti niti ptice. Res je tudi, da ju je Enríquez v tistih šestih mesecih skupnega življenja ogovoril enkrat samkrat. Vsekakor berača zaradi tega nista bila nanj jezna. Vedela sta, da je ubog norec, ki je nekoč živel tako kot običajni ljudje,  najbrž imel hišo in avto in celo družino, ker sta ga videla, ko se je skril pred neko elegantno žensko v čisti obleki. Naučila sta se živeti skupaj z njim kot družina, ki ima nemega ali invalidnega člana. Včasih, ko je bil mraz neznosen in so čeljusti pričele šklepetati, sta mu ponudila konzervo prevretka iz zdravilnih zelišč. Ni odklonil.

Tista zima pa je bila ena najhujših, kar so jih berači pomnili. Temperature so padle pod ničlo; luže so bile ob zori zamrznjene in pašniki beli od slane. Bilo je vedno težje, če ne kar nemogoče dobiti steklenice, kaj šele jih prodati. To pa zato, ker so se ljudje oddaljili od teh moških, ki sta imela brade in obleke vsako leto v slabšem stanju. In tako sta, počasi, izgubila  tistega malo govornega stika, ki ju je povezoval s svetom.

Barbarroja je od lakote zbolel, Facundo pa se je začel vse noči pritoževati zaradi revme ali kakšne druge zagonetne stvari.

Bolezni in trpljenje so se kopičili in se na koncu zlili v en sam pekel. Kljub temu sta oba berača še naprej čakala pomlad in toploto poletja, ki se je vsak dan zdelo bolj oddaljeno. Enríquez je to vedel. Vedel je, da bi ta pomlad lahko bila za njegova spremljevalca zadnja: njune noge so bile otekle in temno vijoličaste barve, obraza bleda in upadla, njune roke neuporabne. Po njegovem prepričanju jima je pomagal samo neki mučni optimizem.

Nekega dopoldneva je Enríquez odprl usta, da bi jima prebral smrtno obsodbo.

Tistega dne je bilo zadnjič, da so se vsi trije med seboj pogovarjali, govorili pa so več ur. Facundo in Barbarroja sta spoznala, kdo je ta norec, in skoraj bi lahko potrdila, kar sta domnevala. Dejansko je bil norec nekoč ali še vedno premožen človek. Malomeščan za svoje znance, za ta dva marginalca pa bogataš.

Pogovor se je zaključil s predlogom norca.

– Prišel bo še večji mraz – jima je dejal – vidva pa bosta umrla. Nimata več zaščite, vajini telesi se borita s smrtjo. Vajino trpljenje se bo vleklo do septembra, v najslabšem slučaju do oktobra. Vendar bosta umrla. Če bosta imela srečo, da preživita to leto, bosta umrla naslednje leto, potem ko bosta trpela dvakrat huje kot že trpita to zimo. Tako sta bedna, da si tega sploh ne moreta predstavljati. Ne bosta vedela, kako priti iz tega pekla. Niti na najlažji način. Tako bedna sta, da sploh nista razmišljala, da bi šla v ječo, kjer so obtoženci deležni postelje z odejami in strehe, in kjer jedo skoraj vsak dan. Vidva sta tako uboga, da sploh ne bi zmogla oropati tržnice, ker če bi to poskusila, bi vaju vrgli ven in  končala bi s krvavečim čelom ob tlaku. Če pa vaju zaprejo v ječo zaradi tatvine, vaju bodo vrnili na ulico po dveh dneh, ker so ječe polne in ker bi celo sodnik imel usmiljenje z dvema lačnima podležema. Ker pa sem jaz zdravnik, vama bom povedal, kaj morata narediti, da se rešita.

Berača sta se vprašujoče spogledala. Nista dobro vedela, kaj naj si mislita. Skoraj bi podvomila v zgodbo, ki jima jo je povedal na začetku o svoji družini in prejšnjem življenju.

– Zato, da bi šla v ječo za veliko let, me morata ubiti. Ne glejta me tako kot dva idiota. Prikrijta to pošteno neumnost, ki smrdi iz vajinih oblek.

Facundo in Barbarroja sta vedela oziroma domnevala, da je norec tistega dne bolj nor kot kdajkoli. Toda on je vztrajal, s fanatično stvarnostjo, kako koristno bi bilo žrtvovanje enega od treh.

– Bog naju bo kaznoval – je rekel Barbarroja.

– Bog vaju je že kaznoval. Ali si morda predstavljata hujši pekel, kot je ta? Ali razumeta, kaj vama govorim? Tako bedna sta, da nimata pojma. Nič več ne razmišljata. Sem moral priti jaz, da vama povem, kaj je treba storiti? Poleg tega, zakaj bi Bog kaznoval nekoga, ki je ubil morilca? Sveto pismo pravi: »Oko za oko in zob za zob.« Ubil sem deklico, mojo lastno hčer. Ali sočustvujeta z mano?

Berača sta vstala in se prestrašena odmaknila. Norec jima je začel resnično vlivati strah. Preteklo je nekaj časa, kak teden ali dva, ne da bi spet govorili. Niti slučajno se mu nista približala in sta se celo izogibala, da bi ga pogledala. Štiriindvajsetega v mesecu je močno deževalo. Facundo in Barbarroja sta se preselila v zapuščeno lopo železniške postaje. Kot sem prej rekel, sta hodila tja samo ob deževnih dnevih, ker ju je stražnik gnjavil, če ju je našel znotraj. Po drugi strani pa mislim, da sta raje imela vagon brez strehe, ker je bil manj vpadljiv, in ju ni motila črna praznina višine tistega skladišča. (Kljub temu, da sta prebivala na ulici, sem odkril, da sta oba trpela za neko redko obliko agorafobije.) 

Tistega dne norec ni vstopil v lopo.  Na dežju je ostal vso noč, kakor prikazen, z rokami v žepih, zroč tu in tam v nebo, ki ga je izrisovalo z bliski in spet zabrisovalo s temnim dežjem.

Petindvajsetega v mesecu se je norec, izčrpan od lakote, mraza in šibke volje do življenja, zrušil nezavesten. Šestindvajsetega dne sta se berača odločila, da mu prineseta konzervo prevretka iz zdravilnih zelišč, vendar se norec ni več odzival. Njegov pogled je bil odsoten, komaj je lahko premikal veke. Njegova koža je bila bleda in mrzla, brez kakršnegakoli odziva ali občutljivosti. Facundo je prislonil uho na norčeve prsi in ugotovil, da mu srce skoraj več ne utripa. Ves večer tistega dne sta moška nadzorovala v tišini skoraj nezaznavne udarce, s katerimi je bilo norčevo srce. Čakala sta oziroma ga varovala s strahom in tesnobo. Barbarroja se je začel tresti kot še nikoli, ves sključen. Ni več mogel nadzorovati ustnic, za katere se je zdelo, da recitirajo neslišen govor. Sedemindvajsetega srca norca ni bilo več slišati, in zvečer sta mislila, da je mrtev. Vendar ni bil mrtev. Zatorej je bil sklep mrliškega oglednika pravilen: Eusebio Enríquez ni umrl zaradi mraza niti zaradi lakote; z udarci sta ga ubila berača, ki sta priznala svoj zločin in se rešila pred gotovim kamenjanjem pri izhodu sodne palače, ker ju je policija privlekla do kombija, kamor so ju naložili kot smeti.