Capitalism should promote competition, competition should be rewarded in the form of private property and market participants should be subject to as few controls as possible, so that in the end the system remains in balance for the benefit of all. So much for the simplified theory. In practice, the picture is often quite different.

Although there are many different forms of capitalism, such as the social market economy, neo-liberalism and state capitalism, to name but a few, they all share the basic idea of competition. Now competition is a euphemism for struggle and conflict, in the worst case by any means. If there is no suitable regulatory framework for unlimited competition, the consequences can be as unpleasant as desired for the losers of the capitalist system.

The losers are all those who were unable or unwilling to withstand the competitive pressure or were forced out of the market by unfair means. Because of the principle of competitiveness in any form of capitalism, a loser does not necessarily have to be bad; he is only, in some cases gradually, worse than the best. Bester also does not imply the height of the level. It is merely a comparative parameter that can be used as a basis for evaluating current human development. So a low level is possible despite competition.

Now, any system devised by man for man should only serve the great mass of people involved in this system. In this way, capitalism also increases the prosperity of many and promotes the equality of individuals. Provided that conflicts are always conducted in a fair and balanced manner, this basic principle would not be subject to much criticism. However, high competitive pressure in particular brings with it the temptation to reduce this pressure in its own interests as a dominant market player, often using disreputable means and methods.

Cartels, oligopolies and even monopolies, corruption, exploitation of nature and the weak, ruthlessness and even criminality can be the consequences of rampant capitalism. Without any controlling measures taken outside the capitalist system, this path of competition always leads to unequal distribution, exploitation and oppression of the weaker members of society.

The economic form of capitalism must be rethought from the ground up so that the few do not rule over the many, but so that everyone can live together in fair coexistence and at the same time increase prosperity for all.

Knowledge and understanding are the foundations of a successful, controllable and conscious life. Although humans are born as learning beings, the process of learning and understanding, which takes place virtually all the time, can be supported, encouraged and accelerated in a variety of ways.

Many modern societies have recognized this and created an education system to give young members of society a basic education for life.

Unfortunately, it is not clear which approaches and educational content should be taught and how, so that the personal potential of most participants in the education system is maximized and the enjoyment of learning and acquiring knowledge is maintained or promoted.

There are positive approaches[1] that have recognized that the traditional German education system is no longer up-to-date and effective and that there must be new ways of dealing with the new challenges of the 21st century.

To name just a few:

• Knowledge overload in general
• Overstimulation through media content
• Disproportion between trivial knowledge and useful knowledge
• Hidden / complicated access to useful knowledge
• Teacher qualification and teacher shortage
• Teacher suitability and teacher selection
• Language barriers and inclusion
• Lack of basic research
• Lack of an overall concept



[1] ZDF plan b

When countries grow together, different nationalities come closer, cultures respect each other and can live together, this is desirable and worthy of support.

Creating a bureaucratic, Babylonian-chaotic translation complex with free borders and a free economy does not constitute growing together. The current EU is suffering from the hope that jointly binding rules with a common currency would lead to greater understanding and unity in the long term.

What the British have anticipated with their Brexit threatens the entire EU in the medium term. Disintegration, members leaving due to lack of interest, economic upheaval and permanent crisis.

This does not necessarily have to be the case, but it will inevitably happen if the EU in its current form is not radically changed towards a common European understanding and away from the interests of individual states, tied into ever more restrictive bureaucratic rules.

A united Europe must be shaped by the citizens of all participating countries and not by political elites who send their desired representatives and who have never been confirmed by the electorate. Europe’s democratic legitimacy suffers just as much as the individual local democratic systems do.

A democracy is an evolving construct, not a rigid structure which, once designed, never needs to be improved. This is the main problem of modern democracies. A fundamental improvement of the inherent rules (e.g. the Basic Law) is hardly possible, but is absolutely necessary in a rapidly changing world.