1. Performance oriented society vs. social oriented society
2. Free market vs. socially regulated market
3. Financial economy vs. real economy
4. Prosperity vs. sustainability
5. Profit maximization vs. investment incentives
6. Wealth vs. poverty
7. Technology vs. social behavior
8. Progress vs. growth
9. Democracy vs. power interests of Autocratism
10. Civic education vs. education of the heart
1) Performance oriented society vs. social oriented society
"Performance must be worth it" is the main slogan of our modern society. People, it is said, can only be motivated to do their best through monetary incentives.
This belief punishes any social commitment: club activities, welfare activities, care for the elderly, children and the sick, soup kitchens, disaster relief, etc. Not a day goes by without voluntary work being praised by society, while the main measure of performance remains the monetary aspect.
Even though money is paid for social services, this monetary compensation bears no relation to the monetary benefits for technology, business and financial services.
The Corona crisis has made this obvious: what are really system-relevant jobs, and one wonders, what do people earn there?
This is the first imbalance in modern societies. It is based on the view of man: "people are lazy by nature and only think about themselves". Egoism as a justification for system components that require incentives and motivation to acquire wealth on the one hand and, on the other hand, call for protective mechanisms to preserve what has been acquired.
It is claimed that altruism is for dreamers and fools: the socialist danger of expropriation, the specter of the equalization of human achievements, is looming.
Anyone who wants to focus on performance must first define performance and make it measurable - this is of course easier with goods and products of the economy than with social services.
Therefore: voluntary work should be paid for or at least valued in monetary terms. Social services (not financial services!) that are already valued in monetary terms should be better paid: through unconditional basic income and/or minimum wages.
As long as lectures and publications are better paid than running soup kitchens, we have a problem: talk instead of action!
2) Free market vs socially regulated market
Please note: this means "socially" regulated market, not "state" regulated market, even if the latter will unfortunately be the consequence.
The advocates of the free market economy trust in the power of self-regulation and need the metaphor "growth" for this.
But "free" market today unfortunately means: profits are personalized, losses are collectivized. If large companies had to pay for the damage they caused to people and nature themselves, those market advocates would soon have to give in.
Without social regulations by the state, many things will not work: affordable housing, transitional aid for structural changes, sustainable products, moderate energy consumption, careful use of resources. Those states that have acquired their prosperity at the expense of other states, e.g. through colonization and exploitation of natural resources, are responsible for making compensation payments to economically emerging states and must become role models for a change in thinking.
The state must, for example, stipulate that public transport has priority over private transport - this cannot be achieved through pricing as long as the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. This is where the real "dreamers" who propagate this can be found!
3) Financial economy vs real economy
It is no longer a secret even among economists: the financial economy has become independent and an instrument of global "gamblers". Anyone who can bet on the profits and/or losses of companies is placing themselves beyond social responsibility. The financial market can and must only serve the real economy - further proof that the "free market" does not work if social aspects are ignored.
Transaction taxes should be levied and their revenue monitored. Quick money through questionable financial products should be better controlled.
4) Prosperity vs. Sustainability
Unfortunately, “prosperity for everyone” only works today if “everyone” does not mean “everyone”. We can already see this in the gap between rich and poor: of course, “rich” people are always rich at the expense of “poor people”. This is not a socialist ideology, but rather common sense: in a closed system like our planet with its resources, nothing can grow without shrinking somewhere else. Nature teaches us this: if this does not happen harmoniously, there will be major cuts in the form of catastrophes. It has always been like this in social systems too: at some point, attempts at social overthrow and revolutions will come. It would be better to understand the writing on the wall and react sensibly: giving and taking must be balanced - no system geared towards growth can manage that.
The prosperity of industrial societies can only shrink in order to enable everyone on this planet to live a life that is humane. We should be ashamed of our prosperity instead of being proud and apologize to the poor countries with actions.
5) Profit maximization vs. investment incentives
If you assume that the ordinary worker's main goal is laziness, you assume that the "strong" in society are willing to invest rather than greed for profit.
But both black-and-white thinking is obviously widespread. Anyone who is afraid that entrepreneurs will move away or invest less because of higher taxes should also be afraid that underpaid citizens will go on strike and take to the streets. But which fear is greater?
Real entrepreneurs, e.g. in medium-sized companies, will actually think about their employees, but listed companies will not: there are hordes of overpaid managers who ultimately take no monetary responsibility for the damage they cause.
A little more trust in the willingness of employees to perform and a little more mistrust in the willingness of some companies to invest would be much healthier for society.
6) Wealth vs. poverty
Wealth proves that you have achieved something - or so it is claimed. The mother who only raised five children - and we are definitely not referring to Ursula von der Leyen here - has achieved nothing: no house of her own, no two premium class vehicles in front of the house, no four-season holidays per year.
What can "wealth" actually do other than pride and arrogance? When people like Mr. Maschmeyer, the former managing director of AWD, exploit fellow citizens and at the same time write books about how anyone could do this, you get a good impression.
When politicians talk about the taxation of wealth, wealth is interpreted differently depending on their basic political attitude: only wealth that is not used for private luxury but for investments is "good" wealth. Therefore, for example, "bad" wealth can be taxed in a simple way: a luxury goods sales tax.
If an entrepreneur buys means of production, he pays the lowest VAT rate; if he buys luxury goods, he pays the highest VAT rate. This tax has the advantage that it is levied directly on the goods when they are purchased - there is no way to evade it except for secret discounts that need to be monitored.
Depreciation models are again far too complicated if you want less bureaucracy.
Luxury wealth creates poverty and is not sustainable. Luxury products serve a small, albeit high-revenue market. The argument that these are also jobs is cynical towards those who have to survive by collecting deposit bottles.
7) Technology vs. social behavior
When people talk about better education today, they usually mean the kind of education that will later be reflected in monetary terms: engineers should fix it - unleashing the innovative, technical forces to solve all the problems of the future, especially climate change and the risk of pandemics and other health hazards. However, health hazards can be reduced more easily through healthy nutrition and a healthy lifestyle. A more humane food industry would be more important here than an overemphasized pharmaceutical industry.
If a Mr. Lindner speaks of a "Bullerbü" of the GREENS, he himself must be accused of hoping for a nation of "Daniel Düsentriebs"! If an Elon Mask propagates the happiness of humanity in a technocratic way, that only shows his humanistic immaturity: space adventures are and will remain only for the super-rich and should now simply extend the "business as usual" approach to dealing with our planet to other planets.
Let's look at what has happened since industrialization: a division of the world into rich and poor, into industrialized nations and developing countries. At the same time, an excessive exploitation of nature for the benefit of a few - that is the true result. And this concept should continue to be invoked on the brink of climate catastrophe?
Technology is not a world savior in itself. People's social behavior is more important: technology can be used in different ways and only the intention of the people who use it can change something positively.
Electric cars as luxury cars and SUVs, in which the drive uses its power primarily for moving its own mass rather than for its human transport goods, are certainly not an ecological innovation. But what wouldn't you do to prevent innovative forces from moving away?
You can see: the fear of capitalists moving away is greater than the fear of socialists taking power.
Ultimately, however, both are just unrealistic, expedient and instrumentalized campaigns.
The parties with the Christian “C” show once again that they have not really understood anything about the true socialist and founder of their “C”.
8) Progress vs. growth
The economic maxim “without growth, there is no prosperity” persists politically.
A long time ago, Erhard Eppler tried to refute this false thesis, one must say, this myth, in a book.
The term was also interpreted one-sidedly in relation to the goods economy: more growth means more goods, more goods require more consumption - senseless consumption. Why do we need 20 different suppliers for really essential goods that people need? The market? Without environmentally harmful packaging, these suppliers would be indistinguishable - what madness!
Growth is certainly not one thing: progress! Progress is also not digitizing “everything” - money as a crypto currency, for example, is a critical example.
What is progress then: the development of an ecological, social awareness, for example. Technical progress is a one-way street: we cannot get our ecological mistakes under control with technology. Doing without unnecessary goods and services through increasing social and ecological understanding is true progress and true growth. This growth would indeed be inexhaustible!
on 9) Democracy vs. power interests and autocracies
“Power comes from the people” - a nice belief.
But don’t we have a “lobbycracy” today? I think it’s clear to every reasonably reasonable citizen today: particular group interests are closer to those in power than the citizens themselves.
Those in power have less and less expertise - especially after the many changes of department by some politicians. The ordinary citizen has to endure years of training and subsequent exams and certifications, but where the strings of power are held in the hands of the people, a family minister can easily become defense minister.
Of course: there are advisors for that - but what if that goes wrong?
No, without basic skills you can’t get into politics or even into government.
We have lost democratic awareness. This needs to be rebuilt. The particular power interests of influential groups need to be controlled.
We are currently observing a rise in autocracies, states in which the mafia-like spread of oligarchs is taking place like cancer. The calls for strong men are getting louder again, who want to divide the world into spheres of influence: back to the past and a war economy instead of social policy. Ideologies of ethnic particularity, ideologically or religiously motivated, are once again in vogue: whether it is the "Russki Mir" of the Kremlin Muscovites or the "Allah belongs only to me" among Shiites and Sunnis and who knows what other religious sects in all possible religions, are just a sign of human immaturity: people long for the fleshpots of slavery and would rather sacrifice their newly won freedom for it. The biblical exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is here the psychological metaphor of three world religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In India, a new "Iran" may be emerging, this time with a Hindu influence. Yesterday's concepts cannot create the future - to paraphrase Einstein: if you always do the same thing, you cannot expect change.
10) Civic education vs. education of the heart
Alongside technology, education is the magic word for more prosperity and more social justice.
No wonder: the two are connected. Those who have a better education can choose more attractive jobs.
But what is an "attractive" job? Of course: the one where I can earn good money later in meetings, lectures and conferences without having to put on a tie or suit, or where I can make a profit from my play instinct as a software and hardware developer. Why be interested in low-paying, social jobs or deal with sometimes unpleasant, strenuous conditions in the trades?
So: what kind of education would we like? More STEM subjects, of course. Here it is again, our current orientation and hope for society. All I can say is: hopeless.
In this world, it is not the one who drives the greatest innovations who will win in the end, but the one who develops the greatest empathy. If a candidate for chancellor has to fear for his election because of a laugh in the background in the wrong place at the wrong time, you know what I mean.
Acts of solidarity will become more and more important as environmental disasters increase: and more craftsmen will be needed than engineers and academics.
It will not be "what" I do, but "why" I do something that will have to come to the fore again.
What am I "passionate" about? That is what belongs at the heart of education, not: where can I achieve prosperity the fastest. If doctors no longer want to work in rural practices, if high school graduates only aspire to university, if good grades remain the only criterion, one thing will fall by the wayside: education of the heart. It makes a difference whether I see my classmate as a future competitor or as a team player.
However, education of the heart also includes "strength". Just as in everyday life, in some life-threatening situations, the individual's civil courage is required, so on a collective level, it is necessary to stand up for other peoples who are attacked by aggressive and predatory states: for example, Putin's attack on Ukraine.
The "peace nonsense" of pacifist misjudgments is difficult to bear when perpetrators are obviously portrayed as victims, and one wants to counter the brutal force of an aggressor who is not really prepared to negotiate by one's own defenselessness and renouncing weapons. Without real "strength of heart", history only repeats itself, and one should learn to clearly distinguish when the justified desire for peace negotiations is more like Chamberlainism than courageous Churchillism! Anyone who wants to construct "warmongering" out of real "peace care" has not understood anything.
Our current, global human organizational forms must be questioned: NATO and the UN. The principle of "victorious powers" with veto rights is outdated and leads to decay. Unfortunately, NATO and the UN did not undergo sufficient restructuring with the collapse of the USSR, but the time for this has now and in the medium term been lost. The current great power fantasies of the CRINK states - China, Russia, Iran, North Korea - unfortunately make the NATO alliance in its current form even more indispensable.
Europe must now grow together and show strength, especially in the face of a USA that is disintegrating democratically under Donald Trump.
Nazi, nationalist and fascist tendencies are merely an ineffective attempt to isolate ourselves from global challenges. Let us face them together and resolutely!
Kommentar schreiben