Solidarity is one of the pillars of society.
But not under corporatocracy.

As mentioned earlier, corporatocracy is collective in nature, yet neither social nor solidaristic. In contemporary life, security and peace of mind are absent for the majority. No matter how high someone’s salary may be, as long as they remain a paid employee, they are expected to fit into a specific psychological mold and conform to a prescribed behavioral model.

How is this achieved? Very simply: security is removed from life—and with it, peace of mind.

A fundamental element of security in modern society is provided by state social insurance systems, financed through taxation and based on the principle of social solidarity. In theory, this means that regardless of income, an individual can be confident that in the event of illness or accident, they will have access to adequate healthcare. The same applies to old age and pensions.

In practice, this is no longer true.

What we are describing is an ideal case—a good wish—that exists almost nowhere today. Social systems are being privatized and dismantled. The principle guiding them is increasingly market-based rather than solidaristic.

The United States serves as a clear illustration of what happens when business fully captures the state and reshapes public systems and social relations. It is widely known that healthcare in the U.S. is expensive—but many people are unaware of how expensive it truly is. Below are approximate prices for medical services that are free or nearly free in most of the developed world:

• Ambulance call: $2,500
• Childbirth: $10,000
• A mother holding her newborn after birth: $40
• One day in hospital: around $2,300
• A pill that costs about $2 elsewhere may cost $2,000 in the U.S.

And the examples go on.

In short, this looks like survival of the fittest.

Health insurance in the U.S. is predominantly private. Policies are issued by private insurance companies which, when a claim arises, will contest every expense down to the last cent—and often refuse to pay altogether. These companies employ staff whose sole job is to find reasons not to cover medical costs.

They rely on bureaucratic formalities and technicalities—any minor error in paperwork can justify refusal to pay. For a deeper look, one can watch Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko (2007), which exposes the absurdities of the American healthcare system, including the desperate journey of uninsured Americans to “enemy” Cuba, where they receive adequate medical care free of charge.

Even for those whose insurance companies do not cause problems, the situation is far from reassuring. Despite insurers covering inflated costs, a significant portion still falls on the insured individual—and that portion is often substantial relative to income. Why insurance does not fully cover medical expenses remains unclear. The conclusion, however, is simple: you must save.

When it comes to pensions and old age, there is broad agreement that state social security systems fail to provide adequate care—even for those with uninterrupted work histories and consistent contributions. Once again, the conclusion is the same: you must save.

Education costs in Anglo-Saxon countries provide yet another reason to save. While education in most European countries is effectively free without compromising quality, tuition fees in Anglo-Saxon systems are prohibitively expensive for ordinary people. Anyone who is not wealthy and wants to give their children a decent start in life must save—or their children must spend decades repaying student loans.

Housing is no different. Paying off a home often takes 20 years or more. One might ask whether such prices are economically justified—and if so, why governments avoid intervening through public housing programs to reduce shortages and make housing affordable. The answer, of course, is simple: that would be communism. And communism, as we all know, is bad—it leads to poverty, dictatorship, camps, and misery. Therefore: you must save.

In 2017, Australian real estate millionaire Tim Gurner advised young Australians to stop buying avocado toast with crumbled feta and instead save for a home—if they wanted one at all. He added that he could afford such sandwiches because he already owned property and had a family, but young people should not indulge in such “luxuries.”

The statement caused a national scandal. As a result, sales of avocado sandwiches skyrocketed.

A similar—but even more arrogant—statement was made by U.S. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who suggested that people struggling to afford health insurance should simply stop buying smartphones and invest in their health instead.

Curiously, he failed to mention other obvious alternatives. One is emigration—to countries where healthcare is solidaristic and funded through taxation, treated as a public service rather than a profit-generating product. This is the case in most European countries. The second option is even more obvious: Americans could simply vote for such a system to be introduced in the United States—arguably the richest country in the world.

Notice that in all these cases, we are not talking about luxury or excess, but about sandwiches and smartphones versus housing and healthcare—that is, the right to shelter and medical care. This is the culture of saving pushed to an extreme.

According to some representatives of business and political elites, the lives of ordinary people must be bleak, joyless, and filled with deprivation, obligation, and constant saving—so that the corporate system can achieve maximum growth. Particularly irritating is the fact that this advice comes from people who have almost certainly never lived by the standards they preach.

Under current economic conditions, such dilemmas are entirely unnecessary. Life does not have to be this stressful or harsh. But of course, I am talking about “communism”—which, as we know, is evil.

In a social state, such extreme saving is unnecessary because the state guarantees basic needs, funded through progressive income taxation. Progressive taxation is a concrete expression of social solidarity—it reduces inequality and attempts to equalize opportunities regardless of background. In such a system, even lower-income groups performing unskilled labor can live decent, dignified lives.

In an antisocial state, the opposite is true. The majority is guaranteed almost nothing. People live in constant insecurity, focused solely on meeting basic needs. The struggle for survival becomes brutal—and so do the measures used to preserve the status quo and suppress dissent. Democracy in such a system is merely decorative: political theater controlled by business and corporations.

Some may ask: What’s wrong with saving and living modestly? Isn’t a quiet, hardworking life more dignified than a carefree one?
The answer depends largely on the culture one grows up with.

Saving shapes thinking, values, and life goals. It pushes people lower on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, forcing them to focus on shelter, food, and security—preventing higher levels of personal and spiritual development. Some may see virtue or morality in this. I do not.

I believe human beings possess far greater potential—potential that deserves realization. True freedom belongs to those who can develop and express their capacities. If today’s conditions block this path for most people, leaving self-realization available only to a privileged few, this does not mean we should accept it as inevitable—or mistake it for civilization.