The debate over equality in our societies and its pursuit trough the government have been subject of constant discussion ever since some people where allowed to have more private possessions than others. Particularly since the late 18th century when the industrial revolution allowed the amassing of great fortunes, the concentration of capital and created for many the illusion of social mobility. People then began demanding for more freedom to do their businesses and the measure of success for a country was not so much how equal or unequal their societies were but how big the cake to be shared was.

While nowadays the concept of sustainability is in everyone's lips and it has a very concrete and consistent meaning particularly in political economics, in the light of the business administration theory that concept seems to me to be redundant if not irrelevant. We can certainly agree that the very purpose of management is to make the
managed enterprise -whatever the kind it is- sustainable in all economical senses. For it would certainly not be in the interest of the owners of a company to run it in a way which
reduces its productive life to a minimum –particularly not if you cannot simply create another firm, as it is the case of our environment.

Vienna University’s rector Georg Winkler said once, “Occupation must not be a permanent situation”. He did not need to be a clairvoyant to know that. Whether the discontent and resentment that currently flow the universities is not going to be a “permanent situation” is a more difficult guess.

Sure, if you believe that the occupation was just some excuse to skive off classes, to make party and to deal with drugs in the Audimax (as they call the biggest lecture hall of the Vienna University), you will give the whole movement a rather short life.

Many are still asking themselves why the former workers movements, parties and organizations in general are losing backing by the people they historically were supported by and why the popular ideals are drifting deeply into the right.

Not too long ago, the discussions and speeches regarding Marxism, Socialism and even Communism were everywhere. The discussion seemed to be when and in which extent the new socialistic revolution was about to come; not if it would ever happen.

Not surprisingly, the drifting towards right politics has experienced, in particular in Europe, has lead to a shock many leftist did not even know how to encounter. Election after election, right wing, conservative parties, seems to gain back a ground that was believed to be reserved for progressive, liberal ideals and organizations.

I usually avoid beginning a postulate with a what if?. I avoid it because it is commonly used to legitimize an otherwise unrealistic, impracticable proposition by leaving aside situation inherent circumstances which define the very problem set addressed.

But I also believe that a what if? can be a very effective mind exercise when one is aware of the limitations of its proposals because it reveals the very goals and pursuits of our acting.

And so I cannot help but making me again and again the same questions. What if we begin to realize that all the people in the world are our neighbors and that if some of them are in a less fortunate situation is exactly because of egoistic, nationalistic and market driven policies with an inherent unequal competition? What if we stop trying to blame some others for the problems of the world while we just watch and do nothing to change it?

People in my country say: better late than never.

So, even if its probably too late to change the fundamentally hostile, superfluous and wrong directed EU campaign which has been run, it is for sure not too late to address the errors and circumstances which in my opinion had lead to the acceptance and even proudly public recognition of the so called “Ausländerfeindlichkeit”, “anti-European” policies, homosexuality discrimination and Human Rights relativism amongst other.

Being controversial is HC Strache’s main tool for drawing media attention, no doubt about it. After all, who is not tempted by using controversy in times of mass media and yellow papers? Surely only the few.

But there is a big difference between breaking taboos aiming the assurance of civil liberties and basic principles, and a controversy done by overrunning the Constitution and the Human Rights with the obvious intention of provoking social groups prompt to be prejudiced. This all while forgetting the basic civil liberties which have to be guaranteed by the government.

It has been a long time already since I was blogging actively, the too much work and study of the recent past didn't leave a lot of free time for it. Right now, however, it's a great time for beginning again. So many interesting topics of transcendental importance are on the air that I can't help but giving my modest opinion on them.