Early in the morning. There are no seats, except for a passenger who occupies the adjacent seat with their backpack. Many travelers are standing. Public transport users have surely experienced this scene more than once. A situation, however, that can generate two responses. In one scenario, the passenger removes their backpack and makes space to sit. The implicit implication of this action is that the space is shared and the group is more important than personal comfort. An action that conveys complicity for the journey (and the suffering of delays), understood as an act of collective action. However, there is also another scenario: the passenger does not remove their backpack, while looking away to the window or at their mobile, trying not to be addressed. "This is my space until someone claims it." Many will not do so to avoid confrontation.

This is an old dilemma that has endured through many historical vicissitudes, in which the excess of one of the two poles of the equation has generated problems of coexistence. Although digitalization generated a certain resurgence of the spirit and meaning of cooperation and sharing (as expressed in the case of Wikipedia), the truth is that the hegemony of competitive logic, the essence of the capitalist economy, is very evident, and with the arrival of Trump and his followers, it has become overwhelming. In our country, in recent months, and as a result of the debate unleashed by BBVA's attempts to take over Banc Sabadell, the word and the concept competence They have reached levels of a totalizing paradigm. It's not normal for banks to talk to each other through all kinds of media, and for the debate/dialogue about their future to fill, through advertisements, newspaper pages or many minutes of television time. The issue, obviously, doesn't only affect the shareholders of both banking entities, but I don't know if the scope it has ended up having was imaginable.