Rethink E-Book

Friedrich Leiminer

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Ratgeber
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 372

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Is our affluent society at an end? What is needed for a functioning community? What keeps them together, what makes communities fail? What about our goals? How do we resolve conflicts? What guidance and leadership do we have and what roles are lived out? In which society do we want to live together? How can we maximize individual and societal well-being? Is prosperity for all an illusion? In any case, we have crossed borders that we as human beings simply do not have the right to cross! We still have the chance to reorient ourselves, to organize, to protest, to plan and to shape. We can still prepare the birth of a new society in the womb of the old. The central question will be how we can shape the great transformation that we will be facing in the coming decades as well, efficiently, sustainably and wisely as possible. This book is intended to provide a basis for discussion.

Leseprobe

Content

Foreword

What world do we live in?

Collective and individual

How many herd animals can the collective tolerate?

Where is my place in society?

Conspiracy theories

The myth of being better

Why is there war?

They called it democracy!

What does power do?

How can people live together justly in a society?

Human dignity is inviolable

Ways to peace

Why do I harbour resentment towards others?

Conflicts and conflict resolution

The power of our thoughts

What kind of future do we want to live in?

How free am I?

Artificial intelligence as an opportunity?

Climate change / global transformation?

Are we ready for change?

Ubuntu - The Philosophy of Humanity

Literature

Reference directory

Foreword

Population growth, destruction of nature, species extinction, pandemics, mobility, climate change, wars, hunger and poverty present us all with immense challenges. We live on a thin crust of order and stability that can break apart at any time. However, our society currently continues to focus on the satisfaction of material needs, which is currently driving our home planet and its ecosystems to ruin. Planned economic groupings that are concerned exclusively with their own supply of resources dominate. We can no longer afford luxury consumption and rearmament madness if we do not want to ruin our planet. We have crossed borders that we as human beings simply do not have the right to cross! We must realise contradictions and act. If we do not take action now, there will be unforeseeable consequences for all of humanity. Is our affluent society at an end?

We live in a time of seething conflicts and massive institutional failure. The crises of our time reveal the death of an outdated social structure and a certain way of thinking, an outdated way of institutionalisation and social forms. We cling doggedly to beliefs and hypotheses even when they have been clearly disproved. We behave as if we can simply block out reality. The ills are managed instead of acted upon. Political leaders have lost sight of important tasks for society as a whole in recent decades. We must not look away and hope that our problems will already disappear. Gregor Gysi writes: We live in a crisis capitalism. We urgently need to look for ways out. Ways out that are ways out again, no longer just emergency exits and ultimately exits into the next crisis.

Our time is one of upheaval and change and the old system will increasingly be challenged. However, while in the past the crisis was a signal of departure, a passage to a better future, today it is scary for many because of the multitude and complexity of the current challenges of our time. This book is intended to provide a basis for discussion.

I consciously accept that I can quickly be discredited because of the contents of this book, which dares to question the old manifestos, patterns of belief and their structures. Why do we have a conscience whose voice we must care about more than the applause of others? I am trying to give an answer to questions, which should make each of us rethink in order to take on the complex challenges and create prosperity in this life as good as possible. I do not only want to criticize grievances, but also point out positive visions that give confidence. It is not the conditions in the world that dictate our lives, but the choices we make.

What world do we live in?

Collective and individual

The Bible says, "it is not good that man should be alone." This primal principle strives for stability and security. As long as there are human beings, they will live together in communities in addition to the individual living being. We are social beings and want to be integrated and sustainably involved in our social environment, in living and helping communities that come together in a collective. Humans are dependent on cooperation and cannot only behave in isolation from each other. Belonging to a group seems to offer this safety and security in an environment where we find support and like-minded people to protect our common interests.

In sociology, we understand community as a social group such as family, church, party, trade union, association, company and nowadays involvement in social media. These people are united by a sense of we, sometimes across several generations. Caring involvement, in whatever form, strengthens the sense of belonging and is a deep-rooted need. If we develop a bond with a group over time, it can provide support and become a new substitute family. It is a form of social selforganisation that has decisive advantages for the members: it saves strength, offers security and social protection and support.

People first organised themselves in families and family groups. These were the survival structures of ancient societies. The family, the clan, the area with fixed customs and traditions, that is where one is born into, adopts life patterns and role models. It stands for the unifying force of society, which becomes the family. In the past, this essential need was fulfilled by the extended family as the original cell of society.

The family as a natural law is an expression of the will of creation. It is the first place where development takes place or not. What unites parents is their love for the family, their interest in the family and in its cohesion. If the importance of the family is understood and if the elements of cohesion - the "switches" and "adjusting screws" of the family - are operated correctly, it provides a positive environment, security, protection, health, stability, education and teaches the laws of life. The family is the community that imparts the basic trust, in which one can learn from childhood to use one's freedom properly. The family is also a learning centre for peace. Conditions that are beneficial for families promote harmony and strengthen peace at home and in the world.

Only the community makes it possible to develop as an individual. There are countless empirical findings that prove the essential importance of social ties for healthy development - from the womb to old age. The social relationships we maintain influence our biology right down to our body cells. It can be seen that less socially integrated people fall ill more often and more severely, both mentally and physically, and have a higher probability of dying earlier. In contrast, being socially integrated promotes health. Whether it is a partnership, the family, the workplace or the sports club, social relationships are the elixir of health par excellence.

The family has always played a central role in middle-class life: As the antithesis to the economy and politics, the family was supposed to form a counter and complementary world, a haven of rest in the restless gears of the bourgeois meritocracy. The family is the original cell of social life. It should show us the way to a form of society that corresponds to my biological origins and lets me live what I really want, what fulfils me and makes me happy. That is why we enter into relationships and bonds. We seek new social contacts and it is in our nature to join organisations, associations, churches, companies, communities, faculties and much more in order to actively shape the world with our abilities. Through careful approach and open encounter, without coercion and power motives, agreement and altruistic behaviour emerge. I am someone because you are means the deep communion between people.

We are only able to develop our creative potential within a community to which we feel a sense of belonging, in which we feel secure and safe. This also explains the survivability of customs and folk beliefs, recurring beer festivals, summer events, carnival events and TV shows. The quality of community is lived in togetherness, joie de vivre is shared and people's commitment is respected. Genuine community allows individual scope for diversity, seeks to promote cooperation and is constructive. Unity in diversity is authentic and honest. The individual and the group are not opposites. Contact in community and our interdependence makes us more mature. It needs the collective identity of the community, but only the community prepares the ground on which the individual can develop! Left to their own devices, human beings hardly develop an identity. We need society to develop our self.

Only by constantly having to position ourselves in exchange with others can we carve out a ME. "We need each other in order to be someone at all", says the philosopher Bernard Williams. It is precisely the democratic, free society that makes it possible for us to search for the authentic self that is not determined by blind herd instinct. It depends on people trying to recognise and represent their own values - especially when they deviate from the prevailing opinion.

Today, however, our aspirations are shaped less by class-specific criteria than by lifestyle commonalities. This does not mean the detachment of the individual from society and its social bonds, but a strengthening of society in all its diversities. People in Western societies are less and less concerned with just achieving social status; they also want to develop as individuals. Aware of being unique and individual, they are in search of themselves.

As long as the status of a community is worth something to me, this individual behaviour essentially determines the structuring of a society. However, if I want to be accepted into a group, then I have to adapt to its behaviour. I will have a hard time living my individuality, which can always create friction in the structure of social norms of morality and convention.

Only when individuals deviate from their maximum demands and recognise others as equals can belonging to society as a whole succeed. It is necessary that we are similar in order to be able to live together and yet we need our differences in order to find ourselves.

This is not about a uniform collective, but about the collective as a corrective in a positive sense, about common goals and interests that strengthen the feeling of connectedness, about genuine community to which we all feel we belong because we participate. It is not a contradiction to individual freedom. Only by participating in the whole, which is more than the sum of its parts, can the individual grow beyond himself.

If we feel rather weak as individuals, we can develop a stronger selfworth in a society and experience ourselves as powerful and strong as a group without risking loss. Let's take the example of the social partnership between trade unions and employers: too high wage agreements damage the economy, while too low wage increases can endanger social peace. Unilateral action would be useless because what is to happen can only come about through both. One side must get as much from the other as it gives to the other. In this way, communal intelligence, in the perfect interplay of forces, enables successes that would not be possible for the individual and in the end benefits everyone - which is only possible with empathy and a leap of faith. A society that regards individual need as secondary can end up in anarchistic chaos under power structures that we all do not want.

How resilient and regenerative are communities and whole societies to deal with their stresses in complex and increasingly turbulent times?

Those who trust themselves and know exactly how well they do their job do not need much affirmation in their field. We need social competence to act in a positive sense according to the needs of those involved. Thinking and acting must not only be determined by sober considerations, but rather by emotional feelings. Social intelligence and diversity can be particularly helpful in times of crisis; they promote stability (resilience), i.e. a certain resilience and certain abilities to cope with unforeseeable crises.

A multitude of people with a multitude of potential, with assertiveness and adaptability can create facts and lead society in a new meaningful direction. We can organise ourselves with our different potentials into communities with many individuals who are on the one hand very similar to each other and on the other hand individual personalities with very different characteristics. When communities are exposed to stressors, communities composed of diversity with very different individuals show that they are much better able to deal with challenges. While differences can create friction and conflict, they can also serve as a catalyst for common development.

A living society depends on ist members' own distinctiveness. This diversity is exhausting, but it can also be a great enrichment. The more different the characteristics of the members of a group are, the more valuable they become for the community in their complementarity. Collective identity builds on the desire for individuality and independence. If their uniqueness - and the feeling of unconditional belonging to the community - is guaranteed, we can expect that cooperative interaction will gain in importance and thus the willingness to work together will also increase. It is a dynamic process of adaptation in which new strengths and competences are developed in a kind of self-organisation in order to be able to flexibly face a changed future. Whether precarious employment, existential fear or poverty - these people counter the feeling of being at the mercy of others with their ability to shape the present and the future.

This community does not focus on problems, but rather on realistic solutions. Everyone has a certain responsibility that corresponds to their own ability. Under difficult conditions, individuals of each kind thus influence and encourage each other and ensure their survival. If certain thresholds of dynamism and carrying capacity are exceeded, they draw strength for their reorientation from their diversity. The distinctiveness of its members makes society more mature to deal with challenges and gain new insights. It is amazing, especially in emergency situations where people honestly depend on each other, constructive community experiences are made. Behind this is the optimistic basic assumption of not seeing danger or competition in the others, but of cooperating with each other in an effort to coordinate. Just like in an orchestra, everyone plays his or her own instrument with its individual sound; only in perfect interplay does a sound picture of great effect emerge. Different members of a community with different characteristics are very valuable in their colourfulness. The special potential of the individual is always important for the collective, because the collective can benefit from diversity and gain in significance.

From whatever perspective we look at creation, everything arose from one source, from which diversity and variety of the universe developed. Seen in this way, diversity is a natural phenomenon of the unfolding of unity into diversity. Thus, the tendency to seek uniqueness within diversity is also a natural phenomenon. The individual is a reflection of the collective, both of which are inseparable.

We humans are contradictory beings. We live in the tension between being part of the collective and the fascination of always wanting to break ranks. This interplay is a basic characteristic of the living and the social.

We are equally group beings and individuals who seek our autonomy. We feel an inner desire not to be so conformist in our social context and neither do we want to lose our autonomy, so that we do not sink into the masses if we are not taken note of and do not find recognition. One should not be in community with others because one needs it, but because one wants it. Every person I meet can be profitable for my development.

How many herd animals can the collective tolerate?

Within each larger circle of civilisation, i.e. within a country, a society and a culture, all interpersonal and behavioural landmarks are characterised by their permanence. Social circumstances, systems we live in, the situations we find ourselves in influence how we behave. If self-worth is at rock bottom, belonging to a group, regardless of the quality of life it brings, offers a certain degree of security and serves to stabilise oneself, because humans are evolutionarily conditioned to live in small communities and to defend their interests: The more influential the interest group, the greater the assertiveness! This social behaviour of humans takes place where it originally made sense in certain situations, but can now put us in danger if we unthinkingly follow the masses. We give up part of our individual freedom. We become dependent on a society and its security mechanisms that pretend to ensure our survival. It is a security that shows itself in the fact that nothing fundamentally changes for anyone as long as one plays along. The more insecure and fearful we are, the easier it is to be persuaded or even made into puppets. We run the risk of becoming objects, of becoming a will-less mass. This behaviour, also called herd instinct, lives deep within us. The state, trade unions, insurance companies and institutions use it to gain influence and exercise power over us.

When it comes to group urges,we differ little from animals. Scientists at Leeds University sum this up clearly: it only takes an average of 5% of a crowd to lead the way. It takes the power of an idea and the criticalmass that grows from it. The remaining 95% of people obediently follow the promises of a small group of charismatic alpha animals (leaders) like herd animals and hope that everything will somehow work out because thinking for ourselves is far too exhausting. We surrender our autonomy to others and do what others want us to do. We talk and act as others expect us to or as we think they expect us to.

Our social structures aim at obedience. In order to function, society wants to make people "useful". Over centuries, it has made people more and more uninformed and pressed them into templates that form the breeding ground for limited thinking. We are drilled to function well and to be reliable for the system. But if you try to chip away at the pillars of the system, you automatically make yourself the enemy of all other people who depend on the security that is based on its permanence. To depend on such questionable security, no matter how bad or good the quality, is the result of successful conditioning to blind obedience. Therefore, one should not seek communion with others because one needs it, but because one wants it. So there are good reasons to deal with these important things in order to develop appropriate behaviour from adapted behaviour, because too much dissolves the ego! The more adapted we become in life, the less courage we have for new things. What do we expect of ourselves?

Adherence to rules and principles seems to serve as protection against fear. Lack of self-assertion seems to be a motivating behaviour here. To some extent, the fear of exclusion and, alternatively, the orientation towards social conventions is anchored in our genes. After all, survival outside a social group was extremely difficult or even impossible in the days of hunter-gatherers. Anyone who was outcast was condemned to death. The loss of individuality was seen as liberating, as the individual was no longer alone in the face of the alien, threatening world.

While these customs are long gone, we still carry deep within us the desire for acceptance in our social environment. In itself, this is a good thing, otherwise we would live in a sad, lonely and emotionally cold world. Yet it has a catch: the more a person experiences himself as dependent, the more pressure there is on him to conform to the expectations and wishes of the respective authority and to become what is seen in him. The collective thus acts as a corrective in a negative sense: what creates security on the one hand threatens to harm people on the other. On the one hand, the collective wants to provide us with social security and on the other hand, it wants to restrict our individual scope for development.

Our social systems tend to view the individual with suspicion and find it necessary to value simplicity, conformity and conformism as important social traits. Behavioural rules and expectations become more or less binding on all individuals. Here lie buried the causes of the exercise of power, delusions of control, subjugation, hatred and violence. Instead of individualisation, a sense of responsibility and the formation of individual skills, the focus is on the compulsion to conform, uniformity, egalitarianism and media dependency. As parents, we ignore the natural specific demands of children and expect or demand them to obey, to claim artificial values and, as we do ourselves, to follow ideologies and conform. As a child, with a less developed intellect and maturity, one has little chance to reflect this. Young people and adults follow norms that prevail in their group. They act that way because everyone does it that way. They want to avoid remorse and be socially accepted. We strive for substitute satisfying behaviours or changes in ourselves or our environment, which can lead to a fatal development. We take drugs and drink alcohol to kill feelings of anger and hopelessness and to feel alive.

In his novel 1984, George Orwell describes in visionary foresight the attempt to bring all people into line in order to reduce self-determination to an existential minimum through manipulation. In this way, human beings degenerate into mindless herdcattle and canbe controlled at will for the interests of a few who hold power in their hands and have the unconscionable exploitation of all resources in mind and thus want to make development for the benefit of all human beings impossible, such as:

→ Herd cattle through synchronization:

Restriction of speaking time in the Bundestag for "dissenters". The right to speak and present a different point of view and the speaking time are to be restricted by law.

→ Herd cattle through synchronization:

The German Ministry of Health is considering a change in the law that would classify as mentally ill anyone who rebels against authoritarian state power over a long period of time and repeatedly defies the given "norms" in an incorrigible manner.

→ Herd cattle through synchronization:

Supervision of employees without their knowledge in large corporate chains. If the partly exaggerated and unspoken incapacitating regulations of the group management are not fulfilled (exaggeratedly precise order in the private and company areas of the female employees and overtime, which is considered and demanded as a matter of course), warnings are permanently issued so that in case of not "conforming" to the strategy of the group management, immediate dismissal can be pronounced.

The challenge an individual has to face in a society is to have an antenna for it: 'When is what I do no longer compatible with my personal moral standards? How far do I let myself get involved? The energy required to act against the system is high. Self-assertion is exhausting, because an individual's position wants to be fought for and defended. As hard as it is to swim against the tide, it is necessary for our personal growth.

Therefore, also ask yourself: Where and when do you yourself follow some dubious collective leaders like a sheep in the flock? Is it a rebellion against the insight to know ourselves better? Am I only normal when my behaviour conforms to the majority? As an observant, alert and autonomous citizen, how well have I learned to set myself apart? When is the point at which I should no longer follow? Just because everyone dances to the tune doesn't mean that the right melody is also being played for myself.

It can be arduous to overcome our fear and fight against this collective attitude and confidently want to live our potential. We live in a time of testing whether we are open and strong to support and sustain each other. Everyone is called to do what they can for society in their social environment. By doing so, we can prevent anyone from being pushed under in the cut-throat capitalist struggle for existence. Poverty and the feeling of being left behind are more than ever an issue in our affluent society, even if it is not readily addressed! In our professional world, it has become much quicker to go under and fall off socially these days. The economic gap between rich and poor has never been so wide. Low-wage sector, temporary employment contracts or 450 Euro jobs are just keywords that show that the problems in our society have not become less, they just look different. Those in such precarious jobs will have to choose between conformity and (silent) rebellion.

For years, politicians have ducked away from the concerns and needs of those who are not organised in this way, but who shoulder a large part of the burden. Despite extremely stressful situations, hospital groups do not want to offer adequate pay and working conditions to nurses, therapists and cleaning and canteen staff. What would be the least they could do in these turbulent times has to be won in strikes and tough negotiations. Applause alone or a one-off bonus payment will hardly help those working in the medical professions. The money we so urgently need for nurses, schools and day-care centres, for pensions, child benefits and environmentally friendly technologies is rather being squandered on a new arms race. What awaits us here in the next few years in the areas of basic personal security and public services is cause for great concern. It will happen because it has to happen in order to allow for an awakening and a fundamental change of our broken systems.

We must not leave anyone behind and must stand up for each other!

We need the promise of protection of the solidarity community, which secures the standard of living in old age or in case of illness and unemployment. For this, we need a care salary with all social benefits, so that care work is finally recognised and paid as work. The concepts have been on the table for a longtime: basic salaries must be significantly increased, staffing ratios for all occupational groups in the health sector must be oriented to actual needs, generally binding sectoral collective agreements, flat rates per case must be abolished, - to name just a few. The low-wage sector must be dried up, an end to temporary slavery, Hartz IV1 and mini-wages! We need strong collective agreements, a real minimum wage that protects against poverty in old age and a tax on mega-fortunes! The redistribution from the bottom to the top in recent years must be stopped. This is necessary!

Cohesion, togetherness and sharing is how we grew up as a human family. Standing up for change is needed more than ever - for the benefit of all, regardless of their position in society. We need to throw these constant profit and loss calculations out the window. Housing, hospitals and care homes do not belong in the hands of profit hunters - profits do not care for people! Are investment bankers more valuable than a nurse who cares for seriously ill people around the clock? How blind profit addiction without appreciation threatens to become!

At the same time, self-important greedy politicians preach renunciation and abuse the entrusted power fortheir own benefit. Since 2005, the parliamentary salaries have risen by ten percent, adjusted for inflation, but the standard rates oft he poor have even fallen by 0.4 percent. Those who live in a noble neighbourhood in a top-renovated old flat may consider the increase in the price of diesel and heating oil to be a major climate policy act. The less favoured skilled worker or craftsman in a rural region who depends on his car every day and heats his moderately insulated house with oil is hit hard.

The growing inequality can also be seen in the global distribution of wealth: At the end of 2020, the richest 1 percent of humanity owned almost half of the world's wealth. The other half is shared by the rest of the world's population. If the current trend of inequality continues, by 2050 the richest 0.1 per cent of humanity alone will own more wealth than the entire global middle class, because the richest of the rich pay less than 1 per cent in taxes. It is my deep conviction that the capitalist social system in this form is scandalously unjust. It promises a better future in which the same people always take advantage. Profits are privatised, losses socialised. The "social" market economy has long been a metaphor. There is no real free market. Our market is highly structured by human intervention with laws and rules, always to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of many others. This allows the capitalist process of production and exploitation to continue smoothly. The capitalist tries to increase surplus value by reducing costs: He pushes the labour wage below the value of the labour power, thus increasing labour productivity and reducing the labour force to be paid. All this happens at the expense of the worker. In this respect, the metaphor of the social market is a myth2 . Prof. Dr. Gerald Hüther3:"What companies need to be viable, they get from their employees, and not for money." Respect is not only due to them in Sunday speeches. They deserve good wages, secure jobs and appreciation, and that is what we have to fight for together! Against all reason, the efforts made so far have not led to an improvement in conditions, but rather to doing more of the same: Those who have, get - those who have little, lose. The same harmful practices are carried out with only greater efficiency. Is prosperity for all an illusion?

Much of the policy and legislation is made in the interests of a betteroff minority and not for the vast majority of the less privileged. 85 per cent of the world is privatised and only 15 per cent belongs to the public. While unemployment and inequality continue to rise and many small and medium enterprises fear for their existence, corporations take bailout money from the state to pay dividends to private investors. Making money without work is the real origin of the massive economic and thus also ecological imbalance in our world today. Privatisation in various sectors of our social system has clearly demonstrated this. The New York Times writes on the subject of the health care system: 84 percent of the vaccinations administered worldwide were given in high- and middle-incomecountries. Only 0.3 per cent of doses were administered in low-income countries.

Germany is also an unequal country. Germany's economic output has grown by 40 percent since 1991, but the average gross wage has only grown by 16 percent. 40 percent of the population is increasingly losing out - no matter how hard they try. In Germany, the richest 1 percent owns one third of the total wealth, the richest tenth owns about two thirds. The poorer half of the population accounts for only 1.4 percent of the assets - they own almost nothing. Especially in these times, this has serious implications for the social fabric of our society in key areas of basic personal security and public services. An attitude to life that is calculating and calculated and only aims at one's own advantage divides society.

Once upon a time, the goal was to protect hard-working people from poverty, humiliation and exploitation, to provide them with educational opportunities and opportunities for advancement, to make their lives simpler, more orderly and easier to plan. Unfortunately, the social divide is deepening and educational success depends more and more on social background, because the ever-growing inequality is to a very large extent the result of a lack of equal opportunities. Equality of opportunity does not mean egalitarianism, but rather that everyone has equal access to the classical educational opportunities, especially those who are born into an educationally disadvantaged family and live below the poverty line. If this is not the case, we all pay the price. Depending on the educational background, one can already predict who will be confronted with the problem of old-age poverty and a significantly lower life expectancy of a good 70 years that goes along with it. More women than men still forego career opportunities for the sake of their families. And many have to work for low wages. This leads to unequal lower pension entitlements in old age. Is that social and fair?

According to a recent study by the Hans Böckler Foundation, one in five workers in Germany today works for a low wage despite fulltime employment. This is a scandal for which politics is primarily responsible: it tolerates and promotes the evasion of collective agreements by companies as well as modern forms of exploitation such as short-term contracts, temporary work, work contracts and mini-jobs, which usually do not allow for a predictable and socially secure life. Every third person currently employed full-time can expect only a meagre pension of less than 1,300 euros after 45 years of work, as the Federal Ministry of Labour had to admit in response to a question. How is one supposed to make ends meet with rising prices? Society must not allow people to end up in a poverty trap at the end of their lives. Hartz IV is a humiliation and a complete reversal of solidarity. We experience poverty and the inequality of distribution of wealth and income as exclusion from a social community. If we are caught in a downward spiral, we often experience rejection and disdain. Such slights make me angry, even if I am not affected myself! Today, unemployment and poverty in old age are mainly seen as the individual's own fault. This is an attempt to divert attention from the socially determined structural causal factors: In recent decades, the political leadership in some places has lost sight of important tasks for society as a whole. Public institutions such as schools or transport infrastructure or the judiciary etc. have been criminally neglected. The grievances are administered instead of being acted upon. Hesitant policy measures serve only to combat symptoms instead of doing the work that needs to be done. Parties get bogged down in half-truths and increasingly lose their ability to act. In this ignorance of the concerns of the community, urgent factual issues are not discussed in a factual way, but in a party-like way, without arriving at useful, indispensable decisions for the good of the people. The consequences are borne by the general public. Things cannot go on like this!

The people in charge of our society are the expression of a society that is torn apart - those up there and those down below. The "people" has rather become a diffuse collective term for all people who are "below" and feel unjustly treated.

If politics wants to regain majority support, it must be oriented towards the needs and values of ordinary people. We need a policy that relieves the burden on low earners and the middle class. Policies could counteract extreme polarisation with balanced social legislation and education policies that offer equal opportunities and security to all and promote an open public sphere that is open to discource. In the future, social justice must mean making a policy for those who do something for the future of our country, who learn and qualify, who work, who have and raise children, who take action and create jobs - in short, who perform forthemselves and our society. Politics must take care of these heroes of our society. For they are the real achievers in this society - and not the multi-millionaires and billionaires who treat themselves to a life of luxury with their inherited wealth. Nevertheless, planned-economy groupings that fight exclusively for their own supply of resources dominate. We can no longer afford their luxury consumption or their rearmament madness if we do not want to ruin our planet. Politics in a democracy is politics for millions of people, not for a few millionaires!

And what about us? We have currently leaned back in a kind of spectator democracy: let them do it up there ... We look for justifications like: We can't change the system. As an individual, I am not to blame for the unjust conditions in the world. Those up there are responsible. We pass the buck. The call for leadership and authority is more a sign of comfort. We try to delegate responsibility. We need not be surprised when our "leaders" deepen this division. When will we realise that our own behaviour contributes to the behaviour of society?

Yes, a society needs leadership and lives, among other things, from the fact that it orients itself towards and follows leading figures. They are seen as having a talent for being in the right place at the right time in emotionally charged situations and for finding the right words to serve highly emotional expectations. All too easily, we idealise important caregivers with charisma and believe in their abilities to resolve extraordinary exceptional situations. However, the cause a charismatic personality espouses need not necessarily be morally "good" or "right"; it can turn out to be just as "bad" or "evil". It becomes dangerous when we submit to charismatic authorities who break established norms and rules and abuse their power over people. How they lead and govern often contrasts sharply with what they pretend to do. This is an attack on democracy. Leaders enrich themselves with taxpayers' money, others spread alternative facts and still others try to recommend themselves for high office with the help of lobbyists. When leaders only look out for their own advantage and shamelessly leave others to their own devices, trust is destroyed. The foundation of a society is shattered. Is our society as a community in itself only an illusion?

Where is my place in society?Self-esteem and emotional ambivalence

The human being is a multiple personality and this inner diversity must be lived as emancipation of the individual from the collective with self-confidence, self-respect and sovereignty. We are endowed with the abilities and freedom to shape our own lives, whereby self does not mean alone, but also as a community. It is in reconnecting with our gifts, our very own expression and our contribution to the community in which we live that we achieve prosperity. We have a natural disposition that shows us where our place is in life. I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses. I do something that makes me, that is simply in me. We are creators in our hearts. Even if it seems trivial to me, I give space to that in me to which I have a connection. To shape life, to create something, is a basic need. It is part of a fulfilled life - no matter what it is. We suffer when we lack creative power in our everyday lives and rarely get in touch with our natural creativity and joy of life.

In every form of society, whether it is organised in a collectivist authoritarian way, as for example in China, or in an individualist way, as in the USA, there are people with a distinctly good self-esteem and people with self-esteem problems.

The origin of most problems are parental upbringing influences and the environment. Modern psychoanalysts today assume that we have had formative attachment experiences, how our intentions and desires were recognised and absorbed by our fears as babies and toddlers. Primal trust plays a centralrole here. It can only be formed when there is interaction between the infant's needs and the mother's ability to perceive them. All those who are firmly convinced that they are lovable and trust themselves do not need much reassurance. Only in this way can children develop without fear and guilt and later detach themselves from their mothers in order to gain their autonomy.

We orient ourselves to the social conventions of parents, relatives, friends, teachers, trainers or even the media. As long as we are still small, we believe everything we are told. But little by little, we start to think more and more of our own thoughts. We suddenly doubt what parents and some teachers claim and start to contradict. If we remain largely independent of the often limiting opinions of others, we have the greatest chance of finding our true identity or living out our vocation. The role of the bond between mother and child is central to identity development towards autonomy or obedience.

In families where power structures already shape early childhood development, blind obedience often becomes the basis of interpersonal relationships with all the personal and political consequences. Those who relinquish responsibility to others and hand over the reins of their own lives to others become addicted to holding on. He submits to the structure of domination and becomes a follower in bondage, casteism and beliefs. We submit to the hierarchy of superiority and subordination. We feel misunderstood, withdraw and run the risk of becoming lonely. Unfortunately, it is often the case that these conflicts fester in childhood and the children often have no option but to submit to them. They continually show emotional instability when their conflict is triggered by external influences. The more we have been controlled and manipulated in our upbringing, the less we trust ourselves to have supremacy over our own behaviour. We are insecure and easily succumb to the abuse of power in the pursuit of recognition because we did not find anyone in our childhood or as adults who made us feel significant for our own sake.

While for some children their conflicts thus remain unresolved throughout their lives, for other children, whose being is accepted, loved and tenderly cared for, a solution is found. In this way, the person experiences that he means something and that the world is a little richer because HE is there. He believes in the forces within himself. Confidence and a realistic self-assessment improve our self-worth and increase our satisfaction with life. And because he values himself, he can also value and respect the value of his fellow human beings. He radiates confidence and hope. The recognition of one's uniqueness includes not only one's talents and gifts, but also one's difficulties and "mistakes". Only in this way does the awareness of human dignity grow, which we then also recognise in others. We become aware that we all "belong". It means a huge deposit on the emotional relationship account when we give recognition and promote self-confidence.

Recognition acts like fuel in social life. Without recognition, social life becomes difficult. Every human being fundamentally strives for recognition for his or her actions. We all need social acceptance in an open democratic society. Some need rather little, others a lot. After a rather unstable period of puberty, our self-worth reaches its peak in the middle years of life and usually declines again from the age of about 60: dreamshave been shattered, plans have failed, opportunities have been missed. If there is also a deficit of appreciation and grateful resonance in old age, because our mental abilities, ability to concentrate and memorise decline, growing older can also become a greater psychological burden and make us lonely. Thus, it would be of great advantage if we learn to increase our self-worth from an early age!

Dr Nico Niedermeier (specialist in psychotherapeutic medicine) sees the possible reason for a drop in self-worth primarily in the fact that as social beings we constantly evaluate ourselves, compare ourselves with others and what interpersonal relationships are available. Whether a fulfilling relationship, a sports club or a party, any affiliation can have a stabilising effect, provide orientation and have an enormous influence on our self-worth. However, if we end up in a devaluing position in an existing group hierarchy because the other group members are richer, braver or more athletic, for example, and make us feel this, then we feel disadvantaged and doubt our selfworth. Our resulting anger often stems from disappointed expectations. Let's check our exaggerated expectations and ideas!

Virginia Satir, the mother of family therapy, says:

"The feeling of worth and unworthiness is not innate. It is learned in the family. A child has no experience and no yardstick against which to measure its own worth. It has to rely on the messages it gets from its family and the environment. Feelings of positive self-worth can only flourish in an atmosphere where individual differences are valued and mistakes are tolerated, in short, in an atmosphere that constitutes a growth-promoting family."