Preliminary thoughts

What could a world look like that places equal(!) value on solidarity, law and freedom? How could citizen's income be reformed and made fairer? This is an attempt to find an argument. It is not yet backed up by facts. The texts are more for one's own positioning, as the sociologists so beautifully put it. (Self-reflection: I am frighteningly conservative.) They are an attempt to find my opinion on the topic.

Welfare in a liberal, solidary world?

Anyone can get into trouble through an accident, illness, being born into the wrong family, a toxic life partner, etc. In a liberal, solidary society, the state helps those in need in such emergencies and expects those in need to do everything they can to help themselves. What could a socially acceptable approach look like in a liberal, solidary world that brings peace and prosperity? Specifically, the question is: Why has the concept of social welfare in Germany gone off the rails and what could be done about it?

Society with a focus on capitalist freedom

A society that only emphasizes freedom and rejects solidarity would not grant any money at all. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Everyone has to provide for themselves. This forces people to coordinate with others and develop common rules. Such a state would be ruled by cliques and clans that to a certain extent demarcate and exclude each other. This can strengthen cohesion. But it can also lead to the fragmentation or division of society. If the clans and cliques exist over several generations and the clans clearly demarcate poor wretches and rich dandies as in West Side Story, then such states can only be described as feudal. Characteristics of a feudal society are a largely impoverished lower class, social stigmatization of marginalized groups and a large gap between rich and poor. The USA is an example of a feudal democracy. Freedom (of capital) is the dominant ideology there for the oppression of the poor and losers. The freedom of capital leads to capital Darvinism. Beggars, homeless people, junkies, gang crime and slums are part of everyday life there, are socially tolerated and can be seen as dispensable variants in the evolution of society. Birth essentially determines whether someone belongs to the elite half or the loser half of society. Social stigmatization is evident in the public debate, for example in the political agitation of Donald Trump or in the pseudo-liberality on Platform X under the rule of Elon Musk. Such societies show a large gap between rich and poor. This is where the dark side of class struggle and the fight of capital against the common good becomes apparent. As the French and other revolutions teach, under a suitable idea (democracy, class struggle, race, ...) such states can quickly collapse bloodily and mutate into dictatorships. Ideas can quickly change the framework for the evolution of a state and thus for the socially accepted stratification. Examples are old France with Napoleon, the formation of the Soviet Union, the emergence of Nazi Germany after the Great Depression. The USA could be a current example of a state on the verge of a revolution. What is still missing is the unifying idea that will trigger the next evolutionary push. Obama's slogans "Yes, we can" or Trump's "America first" have only had a short time of persuading people in recent years. In comparison, the capitalist guiding principle of globalization has been around for years and shapes politics and the economy. I am excited to see how the collapse of the USA and the American Revolution/evolution will progress in the next few years and what state construct will emerge after the upheaval. I think that the American bureaucracy is developing more and more into an organization of organized crime, if you look at the political handling of the NSA's spying on the world, or the politically deliberately outsourced torture prison in Guantanamo, or the state's murder squads (Osama bin Laden). The USA has reached the end of its bureaucratic growth and the growth of its debts, and is on the verge of collapse (Parkinson's collapse).

Society with a focus on solidarity

In my view, a society that 'only' emphasized solidarity was, for example, the GDR with its real existing socialism. In this state, no one had to go hungry and everyone was guaranteed a respectful(?) job in society (right to work). Since commitment was not worthwhile due to the lack of property, a bureaucratic system had to be established that organized the community and the well-being of the state through laws, regulations and rules. Solidarity placed respect for the individual at the forefront. In this state, over time, work and solidarity became a duty. The principle of merit through performance and the freedom to do without were replaced by the honor of the common good. This gave rise to the problem of determining what the common good actually is and who dictates which behavior is harmful to the common good. Bureaucratic structures emerged that were supposed to define the common good and that took care of compliance with the rules of the common good. In such a system, bureaucratic hierarchical structures grew rapidly due to the division of labor in accordance with Parkinson's laws. The freedom of the individual became a threat to the growing bureaucracy with its growing inefficiency and corruption. Over time, state terror by the police and constant surveillance by the Stasi became the central political instrument. By calling for people to spy on their neighbors and friends, a climate of mistrust was created. (Something similar happened in Europe when authorities were wary of fake news and censorship measures were demanded against the spread of fake news and unwanted opinions.) The states of the Eastern Bloc collapsed after three to four generations due to excessive bureaucracy (Parkinson's collapse), although the process of collapse was very bloodless thanks to courageous liquidators (Gorbachev).

In the current political discussion, I would also classify a society with an "unconditional basic income" in the category of societies with a focus on solidarity described here. In order to force the transfer of funds from those who are committed to those who are not, an ever-growing bureaucracy will have to emerge over time, which will increasingly curtail and stifle any desire to get involved. Like equality in real existing socialism, it will ultimately lead to the impoverishment of society and the formation of a cancerous bureaucracy.

Society with a focus on freedom and solidarity

According to Marx's heuristic of combining thesis and antithesis to create a synthesis (compromise), a society that weighs freedom and solidarity against each other and keeps the two in balance could combine the advantages of both systems. In Germany, the concept of individual social assistance was used for a long time after the Second World War. For cost reasons, it was later replaced by the concept of flat-rate social assistance (citizen's allowance). The basic idea behind social assistance is that people in need are helped with the bare necessities and otherwise their freedom is promoted through state framework conditions. The value of social assistance is noticeably below the limit of what people can earn through their own activity (distance requirement). The distance requirement is intended to ensure that there is always an incentive for individuals to help themselves. Social assistance or citizen's allowance relies on control by a bureaucracy. The bureaucracy seems to have become increasingly inefficient over the decades due to Parkinson's laws, so that even the switch to flat-rate social assistance did not reduce costs. Administration is now more expensive than the money distributed. Over the decades, the gap between social assistance and economic power has become smaller and smaller. And the established parties have no interest in restoring a balance between freedom and solidarity. As the stigmatization of democratic reactions such as the AfD, the Pirates, and the BSW shows, the established parties are refusing to make any democratic changes to the system.

What are the characteristics and causes of the imbalance between solidarity and freedom? The characteristics can be found in the terms used in contemporary language. Nowadays there are many so-called top-up recipients who are dependent on the solidarity of society without being in an acute emergency. Because of the growing gap between rich and poor, the distance between solidarity and freedom of self-determination has become ever smaller. Single parents are also generally considered to be at risk of poverty. The ideology of feminism, which favors women's freedom and discriminates against all men as part of the family, is a driving factor in the fragmentation of society. Established politicians, associations and unions are doing a lot to promote the desocialization of society. For decades, unions have been calling for gender-equitable wages - that is, equal pay for men and women. Family-equitable wages, that is, different wages for families and singles, are not on their agenda. This is one factor why more families are falling into the top-up recipient trap. At the same time, the ideology is driving families apart because there is no benefit in keeping together. Gender ideology has also arrived in politics and is supported by a wide variety of campaigns and initiatives. The very naming of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth shows that the principle of equality between men and women, which is anchored in the Basic Law, is no longer worth the paper it is printed on in everyday official life. When you consider these implications of the gender policy that discriminates against men, which are often left unsaid in the media, it is no wonder that many people are attracted to the AfD's family promises and vote for them. Feminism is a poison that destroys the balance between freedom and solidarity.

Summary

This article is just a rough script and a first compilation of thoughts. It is not conclusive (reliable), it is not well structured (objective) and it is not backed up by facts (valid). It is a collection of my prejudices, my impressions and my opinion. It is my subjective opinion. When I started writing this article, I had the idea that modifying the citizen's income could solve the problem with social welfare. After initially gathering the arguments, I came to the conclusion that the errors in the social system could only be an indication of a much deeper problem. It is a first attempt to narrow down the core problem of a society that is currently perceived as unfair, wrong and deceitful. At the moment, I would not oppose a revolution because, in my view, today's state institutions have lost their legitimacy and my trust. They are not worth my support. But I do not know why this feeling of an unjust society arose in me and what is actually going wrong in this society.