Germany – a Banana Republic?

The critics of representative democracy suspect it of disenfranchising voters because they are prevented from voting directly on legislative proposals. This accusation ignores social reality, which has changed fundamentally since ancient Greece and the Germanic Thing, where free men (women were still excluded) decided on war and peace and many other basic concerns. Modern society has become so complex that most decisions require technical expertise that can only be provided by specialists. We need only think of climate change. Almost every enlightened citizen realizes that the further poisoning of the atmosphere with CO2 is a great evil that we should stop as soon as possible, but only a few people are aware of the far-reaching consequences of ill-considered measures. If we really want to save the climate, our economy and our current way of life will have to undergo drastic changes – changes that in ways quite unimaginable to most people, would interfere with production, transportation, the energy industry, and most importantly, jobs and incomes.

Direct democracy is an ideal

that can only be realized if all citizens are equally well informed about all issues at stake. But that was no longer the case even in the days of Athenian democracy – and has been less and less so ever since. After the industrial revolution, man has lived in a knowledge society of exponentially growing expertise and professional competence. Even seemingly simple problems, such as whether and to what extent a state may incur debt, presuppose comprehensive knowledge, which the popular providers of knowledge, that is, the media, only convey in a fragmented or populistically distorted manner, because citizens usually stressed by everyday work are understandably not inclined or even able to deal personally with problems that have become unmanageable in their range and ramifications. To put it bluntly: the rejection of direct democracy in favor of a representative one was forced upon modern states by their transition toward knowledge societies. Anyone who still propagates the former as the solution to our actual problems is a dangerous populist because he wants laymen to decide on technical problems only understood by specialists.

But doesn’t this statement imply the suspicion

that democracy is no longer functioning, precisely because most of the issues at hand are no longer accessible to the average voter and the media – as the fourth authority alongside the executive, legislative and judicial branches – hardly offer any real clarification?

No, this conclusion would be quite misleading, because in a deeper and therefore essential respect, citizens remain the authority of last resort: in their value judgments. Whether a majority approves of further immigration or whether it lets itself be determined by pity to open the borders; whether people want material equality rather than a special promotion of talents, i.e. greater inequality; whether the inner cities should be kept free of traffic or the car should be given right of way everywhere; whether marriage should be limited to men and women or apply to all; whether religious minorities should have the same rights as the traditionally dominant religion; whether politicians should be allowed to enrich themselves personally through their office – these and similar questions depend on value judgments on which every citizen can express his preference – value judgments do not require expert knowledge.

Exactly the opposite is true: Values are at the root of all expert knowledge.  After all, the Industrial Revolution and the exponential expansion of our scientific and technical knowledge caused by it were themselves the result of a new value orientation. Since that time, man has hoped to find happiness in the improvement of earthly conditions instead of a future career in heaven.

The dichotomy of decision-making

in modern Western democracies is therefore tailored to modern society in its historically developed shape. The citizen is to remain the final authority in matters of moral value judgments. The majority within a territory are entitled to decide how they want to live together and design their own future and that of their children. The technical questions of how and whether these ideas can be realized in concrete terms are then decided by parliamentary committees and ministerial bureaucracies, which – ideally – dispose of the required knowledge. The division of democratic decision-making into fundamental value decisions expressed by all citizens and technical competence, which they delegate to technical committees and technically competent bureaucracies, is the direct and unavoidable consequence of social complexity.

Since every citizen has the right to vote and to stand for election,

representative democracy cannot avoid certain dangers. It may enable people without any knowledge to become politicians or even heads of state. It also allows demagogues who want to abolish democracy to rally a large following behind them. This danger can be mitigated but not abolished by an educational system that provides the broadest possible general education up to the beginning of professional training at universities. The greater the proportion of citizens who have at least the basic ability to distinguish specialized knowledge from charlatanry, the better the conditions for the functioning of democracy.

But education alone is not enough to prevent a legal transition to dictatorship (as has already been accomplished in Russia and is in the offing in Poland and Hungary). It may always happen that a majority of citizens is convinced that only a strong man with unlimited powers can solve pending problems. This is where the judiciary comes into play as the third pillar of a functioning democracy. It exercises the indispensable task of defending the constitution against those who try to subvert freedom by legal means.

Value judgments are subject to a wide range of fluctuation

not infrequently they are even opposed to each other. For this reason, coalitions are a suitable democratic means of giving minorities a say. When the two strongest parties have roughly equal numbers of votes, as is the case with the SPD and the Christian Democrats after this year’s federal election, then under normal circumstances both have the possibility and the right to seek coalitions that would secure government responsibility for either of them. This does not distort the voters’ mandate – on the contrary, the latter is reflected in possible coalition variants.

I dwell on these basic considerations of representative democracy before pointing out that they seem to have been forgotten in today’s Germany. Some politicians are paving the way toward a bananarepublic.

For the basic democratic competence

is taken away from citizens if his or her value decision is called into question. Whatever one may think of the two candidates for chancellor, Olaf Scholz and Armin Laschet – is of no importance in the present context. The only thing to keep in mind is the fact that one of them recorded an enormous increase in votes, while the other caused his party to lose votes like never before since its founding in 1945. In this case, the voter has made a clear value decision. He does not want Armin Laschet as German chancellor. Against such a background, it is quite insignificant that the two leading parties were able to garner roughly the same number of votes. This fact does not reflect the preference of voters, which is expressed by the enormous increase in votes for one candidate and the huge loss of votes for the other.

From some sides we hear,

that such objections do not count because politics has little to do with morals. So, you can’t blame Armin Laschet for pulling out all the stops to save his political future. Anyone who speaks in this way is a cynic who despises democracy. He wants to deprive voters of the only real competence they are not only allowed but required to exercise if representative democracy is to have any meaning. Fortunately, there are high-ranking politicians like Michael Kretschmer, the prime minister of Saxony, who refuses to howl with the wolves. And Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder at least concedes, “No claim to form a government arises from second place.” These are the voices Democrats should listen to. Politician of whatever party should not be allowed to make a mockery of the will of voters and of democratic decency out of a personal obsession with power.

Let us not delude ourselves

The next step in the direction that leads us away from democracy and toward a banana republic would be to challenge the election itself – as has been done by Donald Trump in one of the world’s oldest democracies. It is regrettable that Angela Merkel, who achieved such a sovereign, such an admirable exit from politics, stood by the clear loser Armin Laschet, at least not contradicting him when he put himself in play as a candidate for chancellor. As for the Greens and the FDP, it is understandable that they see the unpleasant, undemocratic move of Arnim Laschet as an opportunity to squeeze out a maximum of demands for themselves, but this is no excuse in terms of democratic policy.

However, these breaches of democratic decency

should not make us forget that democracy faces even greater challenges. Citizens are supposed to have the right to decide on values and thus give direction to politics, while ministerial bureaucracies and parliamentary committees are then supposed to technically implement this direction and these values. But how is this to be done when the technical apparatus of modern economies has become so autonomous that the freedom of citizens is inevitably increasingly restricted?

Highways, high-voltage power lines and sprawling wind farms

certainly do not make the landscape more beautiful – that is no secret, but it is an inevitable development if our hunger for energy is to be satisfied. Likewise, small-scale agriculture once beautified nature, while large-scale plantations and endless fields are turning it into an agricultural desert – another inevitable consequence of the planet’s overpopulation, which is also responsible for our need to further increase harvests through the use of genetically modified, pesticide-dependent crops that meet the world’s growing demand. These are developments that nobody wanted – nor are they the effects of any particular economic system such as capitalism or neoliberalism. Rather, they result from the eightfold increase of population within the past two centuries and from the fact that all these people strive for the highest standard of living.

The techno-economic apparatus has taken on a life of its own

that increasingly restricts our freedom. The same applies, of course, to the people who operate its levers and ensure that we do not starve, have our jobs, and draw our incomes and pensions. The picture of democracy sketched above is an ideal abstraction that does not account for actual power. In addition to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, there is also the “privative” – the private sector – which, through lobbyists and the media, wields more power than all parliamentary committees and ministerial bureaucracies combined. In the US, the power of the private sector is obvious. Presidential candidates must run the gauntlet of an election campaign that gets more expensive every year and can only be won with substantial donations from big corporations. No American president can govern against big business, but he can certainly govern against the people.

In Germany, this development toward plutocracy has gone less far. However, the transition to a service society together with digital automation could decimate the workforce to such an extent that the unions, as a counterweight, lose as much power as they already did on the other side of the Atlantic. The greatest danger to democracy comes not from people like Armin Laschet who flout the rules of the game, but from the fourth power, the mighty private sector, which could abolish them altogether and use the government as the executor of its will.

Delta – Is democracy losing the battle against dictatorship and autocracy?

Although we usually hear populists in both camps saying, that the realm of good – their own – is facing that of evil – the other side, U.S. and Chinese students and scholars move effortlessly from one country to the other. After the Chinese conformed most of their institutions to the Western model, the similarities between them are significantly greater than anything that still separates them. “The Chinese now enjoy almost complete freedom of movement. They can buy a house, choose an education, start a job or a business, join a church (as long as it is Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Catholicism or Protestantism), dress as they like, openly express homosexual tendencies without ending up in a penal colony, travel abroad at their own pleasure and even criticize the party as long as they do not question its rule. So even lack of freedom is no longer what it used to be” (Norberg). Meantime, however, these freedoms apply only to Chinese without negative entries on their social credit account that shows the balance of good behavior and negative marks for every citizen of the empire. Xi Jinping has succeeded in imposing the Orwellian vision of a perfect surveillance state on a nation of more than one billion people. Yet the 99 percent of obeying citizens have nothing to fear – instead they benefit from security, prosperity and advancement. It is the remaining one percent, those rebelling against the party’s regulations and leadership, who must reckon with suppression and persecution, up to and including physical annihilation. This applies to the Han Chinese themselves but much more to the subjugated Uyghurs and Tibetans. The party is convinced that it confers happiness on the people (and it has undoubtedly succeeded in a material sense). That is the reason why it does not shrink back from imposing happiness from above. An overwhelming majority – though certainly not 99 % – seem to approve of the system as long as it brings them and their country prosperity and visible power. In this perspective, the reckless persecution of opponents seems a small sacrifice.

In the West, politics and the public lean to the other side. We are dedicated to protecting outsiders, critics and even outspoken opponents of our political, social and moral system. With this attitude of tolerance, we are morally far superior to any surveillance state – but only as long as the freedom of critics and outsiders does not threaten the freedom of the community as a whole. If this balance is upset, states collapse due to internal resistance. Unfortunately, such process of inner corrosion is already taking place.

This can be seen in the response to the pandemic

Even though the government of China constantly trumpets its successes to the world for propaganda reasons, we must acknowledge that it has indeed taken and implemented the right measures to protect its people, while the West still fails miserably in this task. Vaccination against dangerous epidemics was once compulsory even in European countries and could be carried out without mass protests. In 1807, the Kingdom of Bavaria was the first German state to introduce compulsory vaccination, which was followed by other states in the following decades. Then, in 1874, all Germans in the German Empire were required by the Imperial Vaccination Act to have their children vaccinated against smallpox at the ages of one and twelve (repeat vaccination).

After the Second World War, there was a legal obligation to vaccinate in the GDR from 1953, which was successively extended until 1970: In addition to smallpox, vaccination against tuberculosis (1953), polio (1961), diphtheria (1961), tetanus (1961), and pertussis (1964, then in the form of the DTP vaccine) was mandatory; from 1970, vaccination against measles was also legally required.

In the Federal Republic of Germany, there was compulsory vaccination against diphtheria and scarlet fever from 1946 to 1954, and there was general compulsory vaccination against smallpox from 1949 to the end of 1975. The legal basis for the compulsory smallpox vaccination at that time was still the Imperial Vaccination Act of 1874.

Some of the most dangerous epidemics were completely or largely eradicated as a result, so that nowadays vaccination against them is no longer necessary – a life-saving medical success owed exclusively to the compulsory vaccination at previous times.

China, a nation of more than a billion people,

has achieved within a few months, what Westerners too were still able to do in the 19th century. Why are we no longer able to do this today? Why do a billion people in China suffer from no more than a dozen cases of corona per day (most of them introduced from outside), while we will soon have to accept the next killing wave? Certainly, the contrast between China and the West cannot be blamed on a lack of knowledge on our part. Our pharmaceutical companies and epidemiological experts are still superior to the Chinese. Nor can we simply explain the difference setting our Western freedom against Chinese autocracy. A jab in the arm that protects me and the persons I meet from possible death or probable illness is a much lesser encroachment on my liberties than, for example, the fact that in the leading Western power, the United States, anyone is allowed to get a firearm, thus massively compromising the safety of the community. Even taxes, against which the rich can successfully defend themselves with a variety of legal tricks, constitute a restriction of liberties, but they generate far less resistance than compulsory vaccination. Nay, I may say that even crosswalks noticeably restrict my personal freedom, since they forbid me to cross the street wherever I like. But apart from anarchists, whose highest value is their own unrestricted freedom, no one has ever seriously complained about this. Like in present day China, people in 19th century Germany still trusted science and the state that acted according to its precepts. If epidemiological experts (at least an overwhelming majority among them) are agreed that vaccination will safe a hundred times more lives than it may cost, then it was considered a foregone conclusion that it must be made compulsory for the benefit of the community. The opponents were rightly considered ego-hungry populists from a moral point of view, dangerous obstructionists from a political perspective, and poor lunatics (one could also say ignorant imbeciles) in the light of science.

Should the West lose the battle against China and other autocracies,

it is not because it glorifies personal freedom as an ideal – hardly could there be a more beautiful vision – but because it no longer understands the meaning and aim of freedom. Freedom gets confused with the empowerment of individual citizens to act at will against the interests of the community. As for the ownership of firearms, such confusion is obvious (to all but US-Americans). It makes no sense to preach tolerance towards egomaniacal populists, dangerous obstructionists and ignorant idiots, even if these people endanger the physical and psychological stability of society. At its peak, which, as we know, may reemerge at any time, the epidemic paralyzed Western societies in a way that usually only happens in times of war. If the leading medical experts can guarantee that a simple measure such as compulsory vaccination will effectively defeat the enemy (as it has successfully done in the past), then any Western state is behaving irresponsibly towards its citizens if it refrains from saving their lives by doing so. China has acted with great determination and success and by now almost vaccinated its entire population – more than a fifth of the world’s whole population. The communist giant pours scorn on the helpless West.  If we do not understand that in a temporary state of war, the protection of the community takes precedence over the will of populists, obstructionists, poor lunatics and ignorant idiots, then we must be prepared that ever larger parts of the population will long for an autocratic regime that knows how to act in times of emergency.

The process is already underway, and it is so precisely among those people who we hear screaming the loudest, namely populists, obstructionists and lunatics.

Migration and Dishonesty

By dishonesty I understand an attitude that hides behind a facade of morality unpalatable measures that obviously violate avowed principles. The European immigration or rather anti-immigration policy is a glaring and shameful example. It is an incontestable fact that a vast majority of Europe’s citizens do not want further immigration. The governing bodies – i.e., national governments, the European Commission, and the European Parliament – are, of course, fully aware of this fact, not only through referenda, but also through the outcome of elections whenever migration (or xenophobia) becomes an issue. Politicians are therefore doing their best to curb immigration, for example, by paying (more correctly, bribing) Turkey with more than three billion euro to put a stop to further unwanted immigration to Greece and other countries of eastern Europe.

Any honest international observer knows that holding migrants back can only be achieved by force. People who no longer see a future in their own country due to political oppression or a lack of prospects for economic survival (a no less life-threatening challenge) are understandably prepared to overcome any obstacles by sheer violence if necessary. Keeping them out of a more promising country therefore requires an equal amount of counterviolence. This too is no secret to the EU. But the Union feels satisfied if others soil their hands in the process, so that she herself need not climb down from her elevated moral pedestal. I call this dishonesty. Violence is not diminished or made more acceptable by leaving its execution to others.

The same dishonesty is apparent in Europe’s treatment of the refugee camps in Greece, Libya or Tunisia. The prevailing conditions there are definitely inhumane (just as they are in the US-camps at the Mexican border). The countries of North Africa, just like Turkey, are being paid by Europe to do what is necessary to stop the avalanche of people from the battered countries of the Middle East as well as from the desperately poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa that are particularly affected by climate change. They do this by treating the refugees like lepers or criminals, because young adventurers hoping for a better life elsewhere or even desperate people with nothing to lose are deterred only in this brutal way. If instead they were handled with kid gloves in these reception centers, we can be sure that cell phones would immediately broadcast the sensational news to the entire world, causing the flow of people to swell into a mass migration.

Those who resist cheap lies cannot deny these facts. But most people want to be appeased with lies. They certainly don’t want any more strangers in their country, but they still want to live with a clear conscience. So, they are willing to pay large sums of money for the defense against migrants, but they do not want to know that the defense against desperate people and young adventurers is possible only by force and in violation of human rights. Can we see anything other than dishonesty in this attitude?

As long as there is that glaring difference between poor and rich nations, the situation is not likely to change. We should therefore ask ourselves what is more important, a clear conscience or the defense against unrestricted migration? For, obviously, both cannot be had at the same time. Moral absolutists, who reject any kind of violence against their fellow human beings, have a clear answer from the outset. For them, the distribution of all refugees from Asia or Africa arriving in Greece, Italy and Spain over the whole of Europe is a self-evident postulate. If they were consistent, they would even have to go much further. Without doubt, it is inhumane to expose boat refugees to the danger of drowning. The consistent moral absolutist would have to advocate a bridge across the Mediterranean, e.g. at Gibraltar.

Oddly enough, moral absolutists like to see themselves as staunch defenders of democracy. This is an embarrassing fact as it results in an obvious contradiction. They are very keen to help the people on the other side of the border, but for what they see as the unenlightened majority in their own country they have little understanding at best, and open contempt at worst. As already mentioned, an overwhelming majority in all countries of Europe is strictly against further immigration – and this with some irrefutable reasons. First-generation immigrants are willing to accept great hardships such as minimum wages in order to gain a foothold within their new homeland. They are therefore popular with entrepreneurs, but feared by workers, the unemployed and precarious employees as dangerous competition (a justified fear that populists like to exploit in the shape of xenophobia). As is well known, Donald Trump’s victory is not insignificantly explained by the resentment of the so-called “white trash” and its fear of precisely this competition. These people still crave for a wall on the border with Mexico. The moral absolutists, on the other hand, need not fear competition from refugees. On the contrary, they benefit from cheap servants, errand boys and parcel deliverers who depress wages. In other words, they can afford to be enlightened cosmopolitans and cultivate a clear conscience – after all, they are predominantly part of the educated, sheltered and privileged section of society.

We live in a time when we can no longer have both at the same time, a clear conscience and the defense against people beyond our borders. When we repel them, we accept the use of violence, yes, and inhumanity. It is nothing but dishonesty if we imagine to improve the situation by paying others to do the dirty work for us. That does not diminish our own responsibility. If we want to maintain a clear conscience at any price, we have to open the door to the avalanche of people from the many long overpopulated parts of the earth.

But what would we achieve by doing so? From an ecological perspective, the countries of Europe are already far beyond the sustainability limit at their current population levels. The most industrialized countries of Europe consume up to five planets. Not more but less people is – ecologically speaking – the only right strategy for the future.

The decision for or against open borders is thus one of the great challenges of our time. The decision is all the more painful as the people on the other side of the border have, of course, the same right to a decent life as we do. But moral absolutists oversimplify when they unreservedly approve migration on the basis of this conviction. They can certainly have a clear conscience – but only at the price of banishing inconvenient reality from their field of vision. The price is high – it consists in more or less conscious dishonesty.

In contrast, the opponents of open borders have a much harder time. They know that an unrestricted influx of strangers will cause resistance – popular uprisings, social disintegration, and even civil wars (in the United States, social disintegration is well underway). Their disillusioned view of reality makes the realists – let’s call them that way – anything but happy. They are painfully aware that desperate refugees can only be warded off by force in a world where climate change will soon condemn many to even greater poverty. For the realists, the problem is not dishonesty but the admission that there can never be – nay, that there will never be, a clear conscience on these issues.

The dilemma is expressed directly and factually in the incessant struggle between the two camps. The realists are willing to bribe border states outside the European Union for their services and to turn a blind eye to the way they crack down on refugees at the borders. They are only lying if they convince themselves: It is those brutal others who do so and not us. And they are also lying when they try to keep this brutality out of the public eye. 

The moral absolutists, on the other hand, are making every effort to expose these evils and make them public. They are constantly on the lookout for human rights violations by Frontex and in the refugee camps. Thus, in Europe, realism and moral aspiration are in irreconcilable and constant struggle with each other. It seems to me a particular misfortune that this real and existential dilemma is usually expressed and discussed only on the level of right-wing xenophobia versus left-wing cosmopolitanism. But that is not really the point – as is vividly demonstrated when European states recruit well-trained professionals from abroad and welcome them with open arms. As long as foreigners do not overburden the native population through excessive numbers and a lack of willingness to integrate, they can be a great enrichment. Almost all modern states have come into being in this way – a fact that a cursory perusal of telephone directories quickly confirms. The point is that an unregulated influx becoming too large within a short period of time poses a threat to the internal cohesion of any society.

The Verdikt

The ruling against oil company Shell, forcing it to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030, is a landmark – the dawn of a new era. For the first time, the fate of a major corporation is no longer exclusively in its own hands, nor ruled by government regulations; instead, it is civil society that determines its freedom of action. We may assume that this verdict will be the first in a series of subsequent court cases that will limit the power of even the largest corporations when they pose serious economic dangers to climate goals.

This is not merely good news, it is a sensational ruling

Nevertheless, there is no reason for exaggerated euphoria. The climate saviors of civil society – including Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement – don’t seem to know what mountains they are trying to move. Don’t forget: today’s world owes its immense material wealth to a historically unique flash in the pan, namely fossil (and to a much lesser extent to no less dangerous nuclear) energy. What common sense should tell everyone, experts have long since proven: the gigantic amount of energy that has been largely burned up in just two hundred years through the exploitation of fossil reserves stored for millions of years, can, of course, only be replaced to a fraction by renewable energies as they are produced in every single year. In a future world without gas, oil, coal, and nuclear reactors, we will therefore be forced to radically curtail our current consumption and standard of living. This insight is generally suppressed – even by the Greens – and replaced by wishful thinking. On the other hand, no reasonable person will doubt that a restriction of living standards, no matter how great, is a small sacrifice when we compare it with a future where the great coastal metropolises lie under water, forests are destroyed by firestorms, and man loses his previous means of living.

So, the good news is by no means cancelled out by the fact

that wishful thinking all too easily obscures our view of the reality that lies ahead. Certainly, we can and must save the climate, but that cannot be done by saving our current standard of living as well. We should be honest and admit to ourselves that the victory over a corporation only makes sense if it is at the same time a victory over our habits, because, as we know, corporations produce for consumers, i.e. for each of us.

The bad news is of a different kind

It concerns no less than the benefit of this present victory and those still to come. After all, it is not only possible, but absolutely certain under current conditions, that while we may succeed in bringing Shell and dozens of other corporations to their knees, this will not have the slightest effect on reducing CO2 emissions.

This paradoxical truth is best demonstrated by the example of worldwide nuclear and ballistic armament, which, unlike the climate crisis, threatens us not with a creeping but with sudden death. Of course, almost nobody talks about this menace. We tend to persistently expel the biggest possible catastrophes from our consciousness – no Greta Thunberg is there to mobilize the world. The reason is obvious. It is true that each atomic bomb is exactly one too many, but it is of no use if a single state renounces its possession, because its opponents are only too happy to gain the upper glad hand. Obviously, only a higher authority, the UN or a world government can decree general disarmament.

This dilemma also seems to apply to limiting fossil fuel consumption

It is no use for Europe to force its companies to forego fossil energies if, at the same time, China, India and soon Africa and the rest of the world see their only chance of raising their own standard of living in exploiting deposits, especially the abundant coal reserves. These countries will be glad that reserves will last longer and will be cheaper if Europe foregoes their use. This is precisely the development currently taking place.

And it could have devastating consequences

The U.S. has already largely de-industrialized in favor of China, and – somewhat belatedly – Europe is about to do the same. In other words, we are only imagining we are doing something for the climate, in reality we are doing something against ourselves – we are dismantling our own industries. In my book “Yes we can – no we must“, I saw no other way out of this dilemma than exactly the one that also applies to disarmament: only a higher authority, the UN or a world government, is in a position to order all states (and corporations) to reduce their environmentally harmful activities. This solution makes sense, but it is certainly not satisfactory. On the one hand, skeptics will say that for the time being the vision of a world government is nothing more than a mirage. On the other hand, the climate saviors see in it a poison that paralyzes their forces. After all, they want to act right here and right now. And I agree, action must be taken here and now!

Now there is actually good news

The paradox of nuclear disarmament cannot be transferred one-to-one to the paradox of fossil disarmament. In the latter there is a recognizable way out of the dilemma. Of course, it is true that European civil society must not limit itself to imposing CO2 requirements on companies. That alone will achieve nothing, except to ruin our own economy. But if we operate a second strategy at the same time, then we escape this predicament. When forcing domestic companies to abide by the rules fixed by climate goals, we must, at the same time, ensure that no products from outside enter Europe in violation of such requirements. These products must either be completely blocked or made so expensive through tariffs that the latter serve to compensate the competitive disadvantages of European industries. Only in this way can we – even without a UN or world government – force foreign industries, e.g. in China, to adopt our example. But this also means that the protest must be directed not only against corporations but also against a pernicious free trade – that is, against the state that determines its rules. Only if both types of protest happen at the same time and with equal success can we hope that the climate movement does not degenerate into a motor of domestic deindustrialization, which, judged from a global perspective, achieves nothing, while transforming Europe into a poor de-industrialized continent.

However, we should not be lulled by illusions

It will not be possible to maintain the current standard of living even under such conditions. China will, of course, immediately react to European tariffs by, among other things, restricting imports of German cars or European Airbuses and replacing them with domestic products. That is a serious blow as we know that Germany in particular owes a substantial part of its current prosperity to exports. So, we will have to forego much of our present standard of living. No one likes to talk about this perspective because it is so much easier to live on wishful thinking. But, as I just said, the sacrifices we have to make are small compared to the sacrifices that devastated nature will surely impose on everybody. The new era that is just beginning will usher in the successful fight against climate change or accelerate the decline of Europe that has already begun – with China and Russia as the laughing third.

I got the following mail from Prof. Nate Hagens:

gero

I hope this finds you well. I read your Verdikt summary and it aligned over 95% with my recent treatment of 33 cultural myths in my Earth Day talkpasted here in case you have almost 3 hours to dive in Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality. Kind regards- and keep fighting the good fight. nate

Sahra Wagenknecht – a righteous one among the self-righteous

(Debate between the devil, Mrs. Wagenknecht and a certain GJ. Original quotes from SW are in italics)

GJ: Released from ice are brook and river by the quickening glance of the gracious Spring.

MEPH: Say, will we discover even a single righteous person under the laughing sun of spring?

GJ hurries toward a tall figure in the merrily strolling crowd.

MEPH (whispering): Attention! This is no German Gretchen, this is a Teutonic-Iranian Valkyrie!

Fair lady, let it not offend you, that arm and escort I would lend you!

SW: I’m neither lady, neither fair, and home I can go without your care.

However, the cheerful mood of spring puts me in a mild disposition. I am quite prepared to talk to you provided you have something to say. As an emancipated woman, I do not consider men to be fundamentally stupid. But no me-too! I strongly advise you not to try this on me!

Together, the three of them move to an invitingly decorated table in the garden of a sidewalk café.

GJ: May I introduce you to my friend Mr. M.? He is a great debunker, but you, dear Mrs. Wagenknecht, you can boast of an even sharper eye. You managed to scrape off all that glossy varnish from leftist hypocrites.

SW: It seems that our society has forgotten how to discuss its problems without aggression and with a minimum of decency and respect. Democratic debate has been replaced by emotionalized rituals of indignation, moral defamation and open hatred. That’s frightening.

MEPH: And I always thought the left stood for social justice, for brotherhood with the whole world, for altruism and commitment to the weak. If you declare that to be hypocrisy, aren’t you putting yourself on the sidelines?

SW: According to Piketty, there are two major groups that voted for left-wing parties in the broadest sense in the 1950s and 1960s and /didn’t do so any more/.. in 1990-2020. These are, on the one hand, industrial workers and, on the other, simple white-collar workers in the service sector, who since the 1990s have, of course, in many cases also been former industrial workers or their children. Today, it is the better educated and, increasingly, the better paid who vote left, while the lower half of the population either stays away from the elections or votes for parties from the conservative and right-wing spectrum. In Germany, the Greens have now replaced the FDP as the party of the high-income earners.

MEPH: Dear Madam, I sympathize with your opinions. But the same could be said by the right, the AfD for example.

GJ: Objection! Our guest says something quite different, namely that leftist hypocrisy made the insurgency of the far right possible in the first place.

SW: There would have been no Donald Trump and no AfD if their opponents had not prepared the ground for them. Left-liberal intolerance and right-wing hate speech are communicating tubes that need each other, reinforce each other, and live off each other. Instead of addressing the /people/… with a program attractive to them, the SPD and the left have helped the AfD to its electoral victories and made it the leading “workers’ party”. The political right is the big winner of the beginning 21st century. We have to take note of the fact that the majority of voters of right-wing parties declare protest, not conviction, as their electoral motive. /This fact/ shows that economic liberalism, globalization and social cuts have made many people worse off or at least exposed them to greater insecurities and fears about life. That the left-liberal journalistic mainstream has also given them the feeling that their values and way of life are no longer respected, but morally devalued. In keeping with this, AfD supporters in particular repeatedly criticize the “widespread selfishness, lack of togetherness, and striving for power and profit” in our societyIn this context, one fact in particular stands out, which should actually cause sleepless nights to every leftist who still has any connection to their own tradition: the right-wing parties are the new workers’ parties… the AfD too owes its electoral successes to a considerable extent to the working class. The fact that it is the underprivileged rather than the wealthy who vote right-wing remains true even if the party in question advocates economically liberal policies oriented toward privatization and social cuts, as the majority of the AfD does, as well as the FPÖ or Donald Trump. In the 2016 election for the Berlin House of Representatives, 69 percent of AfD voters surveyed said they had voted for the party out of disappointment with everyone else. In the Thuringia election of 2019, too, more than one in two AfD voters confirmed that they had voted out of disappointment with the other parties.

GJ: So, you see the culprits in that academic middle class, which belongs to the winners of globalization. You speak of a lifestyle left that hides a frightening illiberality behind a deluding façade of liberalism.

SW: The Greens, in particular, are now the party of the academic middle class in most countries, voted for by software programmers and marketers and journalists and senior civil servants alike. In pure form, /they/ embody this lifestyle-left political offer, but it has also become the dominant current in the social democratic, socialist and other left parties in most countries. For the politico-cultural worldview of this lifestyle left, the term left-liberalism has recently become established, although left-illiberalism would be much more appropriate. What makes the lifestyle left so unappealing in the eyes of many people, especially the less advantaged, is its obvious tendency to mistake its privileges for personal virtues and to glorify its worldview and way of life as the epitome of progressiveness and responsibility. One does not want to be lectured about immigration as a great enrichment for our society by those friends of multiculturalism who carefully make sure that their own child attends a school where it only has to make acquaintance with other cultures in literature and art classes.The term white trash for the white American working class was also propagated by left-wing liberals. What also makes the lifestyle left less likeable, of course, is that it continually calls for an open, tolerant society, but itself often displays a frightening intolerance in dealing with dissenting views. In this respect it can easily compete with the far right. There is now even a term for campaigns whose declared goal is to silence and socially destroy disagreeable intellectuals: cancel culture. Another typical trait of the lifestyle left: showing a morally untouchable attitude is more important to them than actually implementing their concerns. The right attitude weighs more heavily than doing the right thing.

MEPH: But that’s an old story! How many heretics have been tortured, dismembered and burned at the stake by the Church of the gentle Lord Jesus Christ, although morally they were often the better people, whose only fault was to contradict some dogma. From time immemorial people had  to profess their allegiance to an association and wave its flag. As long as one was an opportunist, he was respected as an honorable citizen and upright believer; even mortal sins could then be tolerated. The right attitude counted, the right deed was a secondary matter.

GJ: Ms. Wagenknecht not only criticizes, she also clearly states what has been done wrong. That’s what gives her words so much weight.

SW: Anyone who expects their own government to look first and foremost after the welfare of the local population and protect it from international dumping competition and other negative consequences of globalization – a principle that was self-evident among traditional leftists – is now considered a nationalist or even a Nazi.

MEPH: And that’s what he is. A true socialist is committed to ensuring that it is not merely himself and his neighbor who get richer and richer, but that the poorly off all over the world benefit from this progress. If companies from the U.S. or Germany migrate to China, that’s fine with him, even if thousands of jobs are lost here, because in their own country wealth is reduced at a high level, while in China, India or Africa it is created for the first time. The same attitude is expressed by allowing migration and thus providing a better life for people who could never hope for it in their home countries. Long live cosmopolitanism!

GJ: But you say, that even the apparent altruist who supports migration – if possible even to an unlimited extent – does so either because he is ignorant or because he is defending very tangible interests of his own.

SW: Everywhere, the opening to migration has been the reaction to falling unemployment and its consequence, namely that workers and their unions have become stronger and more militant. The most important interest group that has always had a pronounced interest in migration, lobbied vigorously for its promotion and facilitation, and often even took its recruitment into its own hands, is the business camp. And its purpose remained always the same: cheap labor and the division of the workforce. 2.5 million so-called guest workers were working in Germany when Social Democratic Chancellor Willy Brandt ended this policy in 1973 with a complete recruitment freeze. In today’s SPD, he would probably be attacked for this as being close to the AfD. Today, domestic workers and immigrants are in direct competition in many areas, with all the ensuing negative consequences. After all, the German low-wage sector is one of the largest in Europe. One in five employees now works in this sector.

The same holds true for other Western countries. Already in 2016, 20 percent of all low-skilled jobs in the United Kingdom were held by foreigners. Migrants made up 43 percent of the workforces in bottling and packaging factories, and 33 percent in the manufacturing industry. One major beverage manufacturer in London had hired its entire workforce in Lithuania. That the migration issue thus became the key issue in the Brexit debate was hardly surprising. ‘Leave Europe’ means gaining control over migration; ‘Remain,’ on the other hand, means unlimited immigration, falling wages and cultural tensions.

A study on migration to the United States proves a direct link between the degree of unionization in individual sectors and the non-employment of immigrants. Although the U.S. allows almost no legal migration beyond high-skilled immigration, illegal migration is politically desired and therefore has not been stopped by either Democrats or Republicans for decades.

As for the consequences for wage levels, these rather tend to be obscured by statistics. As far as /they/… are analyzed at all, the average wage level of an economy is usually taken as a reference. The effects that can then be demonstrated are usually small. This is because it is not all employees, but primarily those without higher qualifications, who suffer from competition. This is why migration does not affect the salaries of Michelin-starred chefs, just as it does not affect the salaries of journalists, commercial artists, senior teachers or other occupational groups in the so-called knowledge economy. On the contrary, these people rather profit because for them many services become cheaper: from the cleaning help to the delivery person, who drags the packages ordered online into the chic old apartment, to the waitress who serves specialties in the sushi bar. So, for the academically educated middle class, more migration increases the purchasing power of their own incomes.

MEPH: Madame, you are a tightrope walker. You skillfully maneuver between left and right, between “on the one” and “on the other hand”. On the one hand, you defend capitalism as long as it provides workers with good wages; on the other hand, you think capitalism is bad because it makes the rich even richer. On the one hand, you think competition is good, as long as it provides cheap consumer goods for the classes with the least purchasing power; on the other hand, you think it is bad, if it promotes the survival of the strong at the expense of the weak. Where do you actually stand? On the one hand, you are on the left; on the other hand, you represent positions that were previously attributed to the right. On the one hand, you come from the left – you even saw yourself as a communist for a while – but on the other hand, you blame your own people, which is why you had to give up your position as deputy leader of your parliamentary group. On the one hand you condemn the terrible liar Donald Trump, on the other hand you praise his tariff policy.

SW: People not only pardoned Donald Trump’s vulgarities, foul language and sexist slogans, these have indeed been the secret of his success. With all this, he distinguished himself as an underdog, as an outsider and opponent of the political establishment, who was hated and fought by exactly the same forces by which the non-academic American population had felt betrayed and despised for many years. The common opponent earned him sympathies from the blue-collar worker to the conservative Southerner up to the strictly religious churchgoer who should have thought him a godless bully. That’s one thing. On the other hand, Democrats and Republicans alike have accepted the de-industrialization of the country and the destruction of industrial jobs with complete indifference for decades, while he /though having done little/ for workers and the poorer, has put the issue front and center and declared war on globalization with his tariff policies.

Now, as far as my relationship with capitalism is concerned, the incentive to develop new products and to produce in a more labor-saving way … is the reason why … /capitalism/ has driven technological development for 150 years and multiplied the material foundations for our social prosperity. That is the positive side of this economic system. /Capitalism/ works best in highly competitive industries where laws and strong unions ensure rising wages and high social and environmental standards. When, however, these conditions are absent, things look quite different. All in all, capitalism is not a beneficial economic order for an economy dominated by services. Digital technologies are conceivably unsuitable for capitalist economic activity because, due to the trend toward monopolization, they lead to extremely high profit margins combined with unprecedented market power. In many places today, capitalism is not an economic recipe for promoting prosperity and well-being, but the exact opposite. An extreme example is the poorest district in Glasgow, Scotland, which is home to a particularly large number of people who have been thrown off track by developments in recent decades. Here, life expectancy is currently just 54 years, 30 years less than in the wealthy London neighborhoods of Kensington and Chelsea. In the U.S., life expectancy for women and especially men from the old middle class and working class has been declining for years. Where’s the contradiction when I show both aspects?

GJ: I agree with you. You make a coherent point.

SW: And now for my assessment of right versus left. Right-wing in its original understanding is the advocacy of war, social cuts, and great inequality.

GJ: A harsh criticism. You are thinking of Joschka Fischer’s (Germany’s former minister of foreign affairs) support for the war in Yugoslavia?

SW: For example. But these are positions that many Greens and left-liberal social democrats also share. Saying goodbye to reactionary traditions is quite different from hailing as progressive modernization the dissolution of all commonalities and the disintegration of society into an indifferent coexistence of isolated individuals and selfish small groups. Most people love their homeland and identify with their country, and they do not want to be antagonized or morally degraded for it. When left-liberals declare war on the renationalization of politics, they translate that as the left no longer defending the welfare state. For people who are oriented toward communities, their family is not just any family, their home region is not just any stretch of land, and their country is something different from other countries. That’s why they feel more closely connected to citizens of their own country than to people who live elsewhere, and they don’t want politics or the economy in their country to be controlled from the outside. People who think this way and uphold the values described are called conservatives today. The term is not wrong. People who think this way actually want to preserve and protect from destruction a system of values that is under massive pressure in the globalized capitalism of our time and has already broken down in some cases. All these attitudes, which according to surveys are shared by majorities, can be described as enlightened conservatives. They are easily compatible with a fundamentally liberal basic attitude. In a deeper sense, they are even left-wing. This is because they correspond to the daily experience, the traditions and also the social interests of employees in non-academic industrial and service occupations and the classical middle class. In no case is the longing for social bonds … /the/ result of a subjugation, as one of the masterminds of left-liberalism, Michel Foucault, has claimed. The imprinting of man by his history and national culture is not a prison from which he must be freed. However, value conservatism, which is oriented toward belonging and community, not only has most conservative parties as its opponents, but also left-liberalism: The latter regards people with value-conservative attitudes as backward-looking and suspects them of cultivating outdated prejudices and resentments. But being conservative in values and left-wing at the same time is not a contradiction in terms. To put it bluntly, such a program could be called left-wing conservative, even if this term faces the risk of being rejected by both sides.

MEPH: And yet you are strangely out of time with your weighing of one against the other. Young people don’t want a yes-no. They want clarity, and they want to protest and to strike when politics and economics no longer suit them.

GJ: And that’s what they’re doing with endless hate speeches evaporating from the poisonous kitchen of social media. I, on my part, praise the clear, honest view of reality that Ms. Wagenknecht offers us. Only the outraged, the stupid and criminals take clear positions. Reason always weighs the pros and the cons.

MEPH: Did the reasonable ever make world politics? The owl of Minerva only begins its flight as dusk falls. But Ms. Wagenknecht is not Minerva and not even an owl; she beguiles us with her idealistic visions. If she had her way, the nation-state would again be equipped with the instruments that made a comparatively just capitalism possible in the three post-war decades – then everything would allegedly change for the better.

SW: Yes, the nation-state is not a defunct model. The leftist… /position/ consists in presenting the nation-state not only as obsolete, but moreover as dangerous, namely potentially aggressive and bellicose. /But/ there can be no question of the nation-states being incapable of action. In every major crisis, regardless of whether the banks are collapsing or Corona is dragging the economy into the abyss, the nation states, which are said to be dead, turn out to be the only actors capable of acting. It is not the international organizations but the large nation-states that are powerful enough to enforce compliance with certain rules even outside their territory. This power is now used particularly ruthlessly by the United States. The nation-states are… also the only entity that currently corrects market outcomes, redistributes income, and provides social protection on a significant scale. The fairy tale of the weak nation-state in our globalized world is thus primarily one thing: an expedient lie by governments to shift responsibility for the departure from the state’s former promises of protection and security to factual constraints. According to a survey conducted by the World Value Survey between 2010 and 2014, the percentage of EU citizens who feel first as Europeans and then as citizens of their nation-state ranges between 4 and 6 percent in the various European countries. The highest figure is in Germany, at 10 percent. Let us be clear: The highest level at which institutions for joint action and joint problem solving exist and which can also be democratically controlled, is not Europe for the foreseeable future, and certainly not the world. It is the much-maligned nation state that has been prematurely declared dead.

MEPH: And yet in your book you show that the nation state no longer helps the weak. You contradict yourself and agitate against Europe, thereby strengthening the forces of the right-wing camp.

SW: A malicious insinuation. I am only showing that the neoliberal corporate-controlled nation-state, which has denounced solidarity with its own citizens, no longer helps the weak. And I show that Europe, too, no longer fulfills its duty to ordinary citizens. Since the so-called European Semester was introduced in 2011, under which the EU Commission can exert direct influence on national budgets, it has called on European states a total of 63 (!) times to make cuts in health care and to increase the privatization of hospitals. Around 50 times, the EU Commission called on governments to take measures to stop wage growth. 38 times it issued instructions to restrict employment protection and dismantle more workers’ rights. And the European Court of Justice supports these policies. The common thread running through /its/ socioeconomic judgments… is unmistakable: they favor large transnational corporations and they worsen conditions for workers and small and medium-sized businesses. The European Union today, Thomas Piketty concludes, has become an issue that unites the educational and economic elites, that is, the upper class and the academic middle class, while on the opposite side it unites the classical middle class, workers and simple service employees, who in most countries are united in their rejection of Europe in its present shape. 

MEPH: Madame, Globalization was not made in Europe, it was made by the United States. You disregard this fact.

SW: The globalization of production was… a politically enabled process under corporate pressure. Its motive was not productivity advances, but interests. It did not raise general prosperity, but made some richer and many poorer.  It is estimated that one-fifth to one-quarter of lost industrial jobs are due to outsourcing. Whereas at the beginning of the 1970s, large carmakers had completed about 60 percent of value creation in-house, by the beginning of the 21st century, this figure was only between 20 to 30 percent. By 1983 alone, within the first five years of the Thatcher government, a third of all British industrial jobs disappeared. By 2012, one in two industrial jobs had been lost in the UK and France, and one in four in Germany. The sectors hardest hit were textiles, shipbuilding, mining and steel.

MEPH: Again, you’ve made a mistake – and a very big one at that. Globalization has not made some richer and many poorer, but the other way round: it has made many richer and some poorer. Almost a quarter of humanity, namely Japan, China and the Asian Tigers have become rich and India is about to follow suit. Only the old industrialized nations of the U.S. and Europe, a fraction of humanity in terms of population, have suffered losses because many of their industries have been taken over by Asia. If you think of the whole of humanity and not of that small part which for more than two centuries has enjoyed great advantages anyway, you can only welcome this development.

SW: It was politicians who lifted capital controls and opened the way for international direct investment. It was politicians who refrained from equalizing differences in production costs through tariffs or even from curbing international tax dumping. It was politicians who sought investment protection agreements and the global protection of trademark, patent and copyright rights in order to embed the foreign investments of corporations in the most advantageous legal framework possible. They did so because business enterprises and their lobbyists used all their influence, money and economic power to bring about the relevant decisions. But politicians did not have to do that. Globalization has extremely increased the wealth of the upper class and the economic elites.

GJ: On that point, I agree with Mrs. Wagenknecht. Globalization was not the work of altruistically moved cosmopolitans. American companies made China rich, they laid the foundation for the rise of the coming world power that is soon to push America from the first place, but they did this not out of cosmopolitanism and altruism but out of short-term interests and long-term stupidity, because with utmost effort they themselves nurtured their powerful rival.

SW: Left-liberal cosmopolitanism are… above all one thing: a particularly tricky justification, allegedly based on noble motives, of exactly the development that we have been experiencing for a good thirty years: a justification for the freedom of global profit-seeking no longer hampered by any restrictions by the state. This celebrated cosmopolitanism is above all an alibi to get rid of the ties and thus also of the perceived obligations towards the less privileged strata of the population in one’s own country.

I insist that we must not put whole strata of the population out of work. If we do so there will be revolutions like those in the Middle East and, to some extent, nowadays in the US. That would be a horror vision for right and left alike. If the left does not take sides with the disadvantaged, then the right will. While the parties that operated under the left-wing label in Poland had prepared the ground for a Wild West capitalism with extreme inequality, the much-maligned PiS adopted the largest social program in recent Polish history after its election victory in 2015. This included, as the most important measure, a child benefit of 500 zloty per month, the equivalent of about 120 euros, a huge sum in view of Poland’s per capita income. This measure alone reduced the poverty rate in Poland by 20 to 40 percent, and by as much as 70 to 90 percent for children. What left-wing party can boast such successes in recent times? However unsympathetic one might otherwise find the PiS, and however reactionary its positions on many issues actually are, this package represents the kind of courageous social policy one would wish for from all social democratic and left-wing parties in Western Europe.

GJ: Agreed! This is the policy that China pursued in exactly the same way, and that’s why the dictatorship can rely on the loyalty of its people to this very day.

SW: That’s right. While 82 percent in China and 79 percent in India have confidence in the institutions /state, business, and media/ mentioned above, only 47 percent in the U.S., 46 percent in Germany, and 42 percent in the UK.

MEPH: Madame, you not only praise the right-wing in Poland and Hungary but even the Chinese dictatorship. How can you still be surprised that many consider you a right-winger in disguise?

SW: A malicious insinuation! I’m just trying to understand why people are satisfied with a government that represents their interests and why, conversely, they refuse to vote for governments – whether left or right – that ignore them.

GJ: China has absorbed over two-thirds of global industrial production because it still has a vast reservoir of disciplined cheap labor. What Germany was half a century ago, but is now less and less: a welfare state, is exactly what China is on the way to becoming in our time. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, and the billion-strong nation now even enjoys health insurance for all. But in our country more and more people have to do without the standard of living to which they had been accustomed.

MEPH: Which means that your politicians have betrayed the common good? I cannot share this view. No, there were objective reasons for the economic restructuring they initiated. Almost half a century ago, former Justice Minister Horst Ehmke described Daimler Benz as a bank with an affiliated car division. “In 1981, the Daimler-Benz company earned more from assets, especially in interest income, than from the sale of truck and car production,” he stated before the German Bundestag on October 13, 1982. It was similar in the United States. “General Motors… makes more money from mortgages than from selling cars” (Roszak, Red Alert, p. 67). Markets were saturated, leading industries were no longer making money in the real economy, so they got involved in financial speculation. It was at that time, that economists like Robert Reich announced to the world that home production (together with the insistence on local content) was a mistake. The so-called Washington Consensus made this a dogma and called for a new economic order. This was the turning point for globalization. You Europeans could only watch helplessly. Once the U.S. had started outsourcing ever larger parts of its industrial production to China, German companies had no choice but to adopt this strategy as well. Otherwise Germany’s products would no longer have be competitive on world markets due to excessively high prices. Contrary to what you, Madame, would have us believe, German politicians and German business were forced to comply. The nation state was doomed to impotence.

GJ: Not quite. German politicians could have refused globalization. Then all German exports would have been limited to Europe. At the beginning of the 1990s, the effects of such a refusal still remained manageable. At that time, three quarters of German exports went to Europe, so the loss would have been limited to the fourth part of exports. I made this suggestion in my book “Die Arbeitslose Gesellschaft” (Jobless Society, S. Fischer). German economist Meinhard Miegel gave the following commentary: “Try to persuade German industrialists to renounce”.

MEPH: Such renunciation could indeed not be expected because globalization proved beneficial for a majority of mankind. The Chinese and Indians would simply describe Madame’s theses as absurd – that explains why they have so much confidence in their governments. At the same time, you have to acknowledge the fact that outsourcing, once a state (in this case the US) has started with it, has to be accepted by all other states if these want to remain present on world markets. Madame is studiously turning a blind eye to this fact, because it does not fit into her image of a sovereign national state. Such blindness also explains her harsh judgment of the Agenda 2010 of the then German chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

SW: In their dealings with corporate boards and business associations, economic liberals like Schröder or Blair have usually only distinguished themselves from their conservative colleagues by an even greater subservience. /The existence/ of the low-wage sector /goes back /in part/… to the labor market reforms during the time of the SPD-Green coalition under Gerhard Schröder, which had abolished many protective rights of employees and given companies the opportunity to replace regular full-time jobs with irregular employment relationships on a large scale.

MEPH: Again, Madame is simply ignoring an essential part of economic reality. After the Washington Consensus made outsourcing acceptable, the level of wages paid in Germany no longer depended exclusively on competitive conditions in Europe but also on the requirements of the world market. If low-wage countries sold products there at much lower prices, German export companies had to lower wages at home or they would have been forced out of the market. The companies in question were as powerless in the face of this external coercion as were the trade unions. Like economist Heiner Flassbeck and many others, Madame does not want to acknowledge this elementary fact. She seems to forget that German competitiveness was already in danger, which is why at the time the rest of the world derided Germany as “the sick man of Europe”. It was for this reason that chancellor Gerhard Schröder pulled the emergency brake. By making the German welfare state cheaper, he gave German exports a huge boost, but at the cost of installing a low-wage sector in his own country – the largest in Europe. For a left-wing party like the SPD, it was. of course, a terrible blow that a chancellor from its own ranks decided to take such a step.

GJ: As long as Germany excelled with innovations, it was hardly subject to external wage pressure, because companies can charge monopoly prices for innovative products, at least for a time. But innovation cannot be decreed from above. The Chinese now register the most patents worldwide.

MEPH: Madame is nursing a number of other illusions as well. Even without outsourcing, there will be no return to the conditions of half a century ago. I am very surprised that the term “automation” does not appear once in your book. But you omit automation for good reason, as it makes your vision a failure. Workers and employees whose function was to carry out mental or physical routines are no longer needed in modern economy because a large part of their work can now be done by robots and artificial intelligence. But those who are not needed are not paid wages. Of course, no company or state can be forced to use robots and artificial intelligence, but if it ignores or refuses this development, it will technologically lag behind and will produce with less efficiency and more expense. For this reason, digitization and the advance of job-destroying robots can no longer be stopped. This affects all the classic professions of the working class and white-collar employees – in other words, that part of the population which represented the majority during those three post-war decades praised by Madame as a model. Due to technological progress, this majority has now already largely crumbled away. How can you hope that their representation, the trade unions, will still play a role in the future? How can we use the tools of the past to meet the challenges of such a very different future?

SW: Private ownership and the pursuit of profit /can/ only advance technological progress and thus increase the economy’s potential for prosperity where competition works and clear rules and laws ensure that costs cannot be cut at the expense of employees and the environment.

GJ: Unfortunately, that is not true. Because of Agenda 2010, Germany as a whole became richer, there was growth again, only the less advantaged classes, the globalization losers, suffered. And as I said, while globalization made the losers in Old Europe and the United States poorer, almost a quarter of humanity has become wealthier since then – so overall the world got richer.

MEPH: Which is why Madame only receives applause for her theses in Old Europe and perhaps also in the United States. But my doubts go even deeper. There is something else – something really frightening – that she has completely overlooked. For about two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, the world assumed that resources were available in unlimited quantities. This hope was at the base for the demand for perpetual growth, which would eventually make rich everyone on the globe. But mankind has to dispense with this illusion. By now, it is already consuming more than a single globe (in the shape of non-renewable fossil energy reserves). But if we exhaust a non-renewable reservoir, then we are dealing with a zero-sum game. What some consume in excess, others must do without – now and in the future. Thus, in a world with limited resources, wealth for all becomes a mirage. The growth of some inevitably occurs at the expense of others. We would have to accept this objection to growth even if the climate crisis did not exist.

SW: Ah yes, the climate crisis. “Fridays for Future” and the left-liberal mainstream had turned the climate debate into a lifestyle debate, focusing on the demand for a carbon tax. The climate package passed by the federal government in response to /this/.. movement disproportionately burdens the lower middle class and the poor, as well as people living in rural areas. In order to save the environment and the climate, do we want to turn many of life’s comforts back into a luxury good that only the privileged can afford – or would we rather produce sustainably and with other technologies instead?

GJ: Please, that is surely the wrong alternative. With our actual growth mania we are heading for collapse if we don’t radically limit resource consumption. You admit as much at another place: Where will the energy come from to keep our economy running, to power our vehicles, and to supply our homes with heat and electricity if we do not want to use fossil fuels or return to nuclear power? Anyone who thinks they can solve this problem with a few more wind turbines and solar panels at today’s technological level has obviously never considered the energy needs of a society like ours, nor the fact that dark, windless days are very common in our latitudes despite climate change.Indirectly, you yourself admit that climate change and dwindling resources are forcing renunciation. The question is, who should renounce? You are committed to helping the poorest in society – and I am right there with you. If cutting consumption is not to lead to revolts within states and resource wars between them, then it has to apply to everyone.

MEPH: Very true, but the nation state is not in a position to enforce it. If it taxes domestic companies in a way that seriously helps the poor, they relocate abroad; if it makes the rich pay, they take flight with their capital; if it cuts the salaries of its most talented people – the scientists, computer scientists, doctors, etc. – for the purpose of redistribution, they will look for jobs elsewhere. Only new walls between states – in other words, worldwide deglobalization – could prevent such evasion. But this would still be of no help under present conditions. For each state would then have to find all resources necessary for its way of living within its own borders. It could not be allowed to pollute with its own waste the air and the seas of the entire globe and, of course, it would have to renounce the missiles and bombs with which it threatens the whole rest of the world.

Technology has forced globalization on you – not the malice of politicians. By now, you all find yourself in the same tiny boat because through technological progress you have made the globe so small that everyone can know in real time what at the same moment not only his neighbor in the same street but the people on the other side of the globe are doing and intending. Globalization produced by technology is your undoing.

SW: I insist that there is still the opposition of near and far. A key category for delineating communities is the distinction of belonging and not belonging. In an intact family, we feel more closely connected to other family members than we do to people who are not part of the family. We are more likely to support family members than strangers. And we have greater confidence that we will not be taken advantage of and deceived. This is not morally questionable, but normal human behavior. The more we feel connected to people, the greater the inhibition to pull the wool over their eyes. It is… /this closeness/ that creates a basis for trust.

GJ: Certainly, and you also provide an apt quotation from Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Beware of these cosmopolitans, who in their writings promote far away duties, the fulfillment of which they contemptuously reject among themselves. Such a philosopher loves the Tartars in order to be above loving his neighbors.”

But despite this, and whether we like it or not, technology has brought all the people of the world so close together through an ever-increasing flow of resources, goods, information, and, unfortunately, garbage and bombs, that we are now forced, for our very survival, to trust those farthest away almost as much as those closest to us, because mere distance does not prevent even the most distant people from poisoning the air and the seas, irradiating the atmosphere, and melting the last glaciers. One can see in this an imminent danger, because the nation-state and its people have largely lost control over their own destiny. Or we can deny this dependence, as Mrs. Wagenknecht does. Or, finally, we can promise the rest of the world the gospel of an ever-growing and, what’s more, green economy, as China does, boasting that it is the most powerful engine of industrial production, world trade and global welfare.

MEPH: A blue-eyed vision that should rather be called a fraud, because China is well aware of the world’s dwindling resources. It is doing everything in its power to buy up land around the world and to secure access to resources in Africa as well as in Latin America. The battle for the remaining treasures has long since begun.

But I must add one more accusation. Mrs. Wagenknecht is blind to the real challenges that will make the situation of the poorest even worse in rich Western countries of the West. What we have been observing for several decades already is a global race for the best brains. After all, digital revolution has made technology even more complex and intellectually demanding. The most highly developed computer programs are already so extensive that DIN-A4 pages filled with them result in stacks the height of the Eiffel Tower. In a positive sense, we may call this a spiritualization of modern civilization. In a negative perspective, this development amounts to fewer and fewer people being eligible for these professions, because the Gaussian normal distribution of intelligence has not changed. The pool from which to draw such professions is therefore limited. Differences in pay will therefore inevitably increase, because the talent and competence required will increasingly turn into a rare commodity. Your society is in danger of falling apart or even breaking down because of complexity. While a shrinking minority of highly gifted people maintain technological “progress,” a majority sees itself increasingly sidelined.

As little as the nation-state, no matter how hard it strives for social justice, can reverse automation, so little can it do against the tendency of growing complexity.

SW: Factual constraints! I know, that’s how all those like to talk who find an explanation for even the most unbearable conditions. This entitles them to put their hands in their laps: there’s nothing more that can be done.

GJ: Objection. Let me defend my friend against such accusation. He only claims that the nation state is powerless against this development. Whether we like it or not, it is our triumphant technology that narrows our globe and imposes its laws. Nowhere is this compulsion more evident than with weapons. Every state that can afford them today possesses armaments with which to destroy its neighbors; the three superpowers can even wipe out the whole of mankind and make the globe uninhabitable for thousands of years. Against this impending danger the individual nation state is condemned to utter helplessness. If out of Christian meekness it were to decide to completely neutralize its own weapons arsenal, it is doomed to be oppressed by its previous opponents. Up to now no state has ever been rewarded for presenting its right cheek after being hit on the left one. So, all states continually strive for more arms – and in the process become more and more dangerous to each other. In our time, a more spark could suffice to ignite a global conflagration. This danger, which has been threatening us more and more since the beginning of the new century, cannot be averted by any individual state, but only by the leading superpowers. Either they succeed in deciding on a common world governance or they plunge each other and the rest of the world into ruin.

MEPH: Madame, you did not see or did not want to see that the nation-state cannot solve this most pressing problem of the new century. But the same is true for the climate crisis, resource depletion, and environmental littering. Every individual nation state, but also every confederation of states like the European Union, suffers disadvantages if being the only one that abandons fossil fuels and nuclear power, because renewables alone cannot meet its needs – as you yourself admit. So here again the nation-state remains helpless. There is only one solution to the greatest challenges of our century. Countries must get together and adopt rules for the whole world. Only when renouncing bombs, growth and the poisoning of nature becomes a common concern will it be recognized and followed by everyone. By attributing to the nation-state a competence to find solutions that it can no longer have in our time, you are describing conditions that belong to the past without giving us a realistic perspective for the future.

GJ: Please stop, you go too far. Ms. Wagenknecht rightly condemns the disintegration of society, which threatens not only the US but also Europe. She is one of very few righteous persons among the self-righteous because she exposes the hypocrisy of the lifestyle left by siding with the losers of globalization.

Sahra Wagenknecht to GJ:

Who is this belligerent gentleman who is pressing me so hard?

GJ: That is OldNick, my personal shadow and self-proclaimed friend.

MEPH: I am Part of that Power, not understood, Which always wills the Bad, and always works the Good.

GJ and his companion together:

Dr. Wagenknecht. Thank you for this interview!

Nation state or Homo technicus universalis?

Abstract:

The “Clash of Cultures” due to irreconcilable religions and ideologies belongs to the past. In contrast, the “Clash of Civilizations”, i.e. the worldwide struggle for an equally high and, if possible, ever higher material standard of living, is darkening our common future, since the last resources are being plundered and nature increasingly poisoned in the name of progress. Mankind will only escape this struggle against itself and against nature by submitting to a global authority that demands the same restrictions from all of us.

We are used to lamenting entries on the red list of extinct or endangered species; these include dinosaurs, Bengal tigers, black grouse or river pearl mussels. But do not think that nature is unimaginative. She continuously replaces the worn out with lots of new creations: instead of the dinosaurs she now gives us Corona and even adds many new mutants.

As in the animal kingdom, so in human cultures. To the Germans, as they once existed, we must undoubtedly say goodbye, but this is no less true of the French, the English, the Indians, the Chinese, and so on. In this case too, however, the decline of entire cultures is accompanied by a new and surprising phenomenon. It has been noticed for some time that there are more and more global professions, e.g. the mathematician, the programmer, the engineer, the chemist, the truck driver, the mechanic, the internist, the ENT doctor and thousands of similar functions, but these new professions are free from all national roots. Something has died – while at the same time something surprisingly new has taken its place. As it were, nature has triumphed over culture. Since nature is the same everywhere, the laws found by the natural sciences must be the same in Berlin, Tokyo, Dubai or in Timbuktu, i.e. independent of respective national cultures. Obviously, most of the life and functioning of modern civilization is based on these laws. All over the world, a chemical factory, a car company, a corporate office are like undistinguishable peas in a pod all over the world. Identical function determines identical structure. The differences are only technical, namely due to more or less technical progress.

The time when everything was still different,

because people in France, India, China thought differently, ate differently, loved differently and lived differently – this time dates back just a century and a half, and it still looms with its stone witnesses – cathedrals, temples and palaces – here and there into our present, but it already belongs to a distant history (mercilessly parodied by Disneyland). Our omnipotent present not only produced a new international species, homo technicus, who – whether in Cape Town, Berlin, Houston or Madras – spends more and more of his time in front of the computer and with the cell phone, but at the same time it has made the urban landscapes of all countries more and more similar to each other. Meanwhile, Austrian, Chinese, South African or Indian architecture merely exists in remnants: megacities employ the same architects and engineers from all over the world. A worldwide uniformity due to uniform functions is inevitable. Banks, millennium and television towers, museums, train stations, airports and dormitory towns all over the world are stitched according to the same pattern. Everything national is in unmistakable retreat.

But is it right to call the new man,

this prototype of the 21st century, who is about to create a global unified civilization, “Homo technicus”? Do not games, music, painting and leisure time form an opposite pole that seems at least as important to many people?

That may certainly be so. The love of mathematics and the natural sciences was nowhere so widespread that it alone was able to bring forth the new prototype. In fact, Homo technicus owes his triumph to a much more elementary drive: the addiction, spread over the entire globe, to all the achievements of civilization to which only technology provides access. Much-maligned capitalism did not have to cajole them into it. No one in our present world wants to do without a flush toilet, a washing machine, a personal bank account, a computer or a cell phone, and very few people want to do without a car or the prospect of someday hovering above the clouds in a modern airplane. However, each of the aforementioned achievements presupposes a modern infrastructure, i.e., a radical transformation and reorganization of nature such as no single country on the globe knew two hundred years ago.

Meanwhile, many of these modern achievements

have come to be traded as human rights, without which life is considered incomplete and miserable. Nowadays, no Chinese person is looked at askance if he or she has not read Confucius; hardly any German still takes a look at Goethe’s Faust (“Fuck you Goethe” has even become a slogan meant to discourage such action). Seen by the millennial generation, i.e. those under forty, this is mere history, completely written off by most of them. As cultural knowledge is of no use with regard to the preservation of our all-devouring techno-economic civilization, it is considered superfluous. This liberation of the new generation from all historical burdens undoubtedly holds its own opportunities. Young people – Chinese, Japanese, U.S. Americans, Germans, French, etc. – can look each other in the eye without feeling any different. What counts is the knowledge and handling of the gadgets of modern civilization – and they are all equally good at that. What could divide them – their national culture and national history – they have already shaken off. Seen in this light, the fact that modern Homo technicus has shed all the trappings of his tribal affiliation – regardless of religion, race or ideology – can also be seen as a progress.

Global fraternization

seems to be within reach for the first time in human history. The unifying basis of techno-scientific thinking as well as of common external living conditions could become the springboard to a future in which irreconcilable antagonisms and the resulting struggles are replaced by mutual understanding and thus by harmony and peace. Nor should greater global uniformity worry us, because it is uniformity in constant change. Diversity and development do not disappear, they only manifest themselves in fundamentally different ways. Until two hundred years ago, history consisted in the formation of human beings – that is why the natives of Papua New Guinea so much differed in appearance, religion, and customs from native New Yorkers or Hindu Brahmins that all three could be considered different species within the same genus. In contrast, history today no longer consists in the shaping of man – an Indian, a U.S. American, or a New Guinea physicist can be distinguished at most by the hue of their skin. It consists in the shaping and formation of nature. Homo technicus recognizes and shapes nature according to his own purposes. In this case too variety is created, even potentially infinite variety. But it comes about in a different way, namely by the fact that our knowledge of nature constantly grows and with it the products it creates.

As homo technicus leaves history behind him

like a bad memory, he does not want to know anything about privileges – for him these too belong to the burden of history. It is, therefore, not surprising that the overwhelming majority of Millennials are committed to a fair distribution of material goods – regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation (as the ritual mantra would have it). Whether Europeans, Africans or Chinese, all people have the same inherent right to a decent life, i.e. to those material blessings that the people of the West have long enjoyed. At the same time, the new generation also wants to grant nature its rights, which is why a green mindset is widespread among Millennials. They take to the streets not only to protest against white supremacy but also to demand action against climate change. The new generation doesn’t want to know anything about past history, but they take history very seriously when seen as their own future: they want to make it themselves. That’s why their demonstrations are causing so much headache for governments around the world.

Millennials are cosmopolitans

For the first time, an entire generation of humanity represents what was previously the privilege of only a handful of great minds. In Germany, Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Schiller and Kant were cosmopolitans in the best sense of the word.  All national narrow-mindedness was not only alien to them but considered repugnant. How could these early pioneers have guessed that, since the end of the 20th century at the latest, Millennials would turn their intellectual cosmopolitanism into a technical one that would encompass the entire globe? More and more young people enthusiastically experience the Internet as a tool for making as many friends on other continents as in their own country. Millennials are aware that kindred spirits in Chengdu, Vancouver or Bangalore may be far closer to them than reactionary morons in their own homeland. And this is much more than a mere abstract insight. More and more marriages are taking place internationally, and ever greater sums are being donated to people in need somewhere in the world. Not a few idealists would even like to build a bridge over the Mediterranean so that in the future no refugee will have to perish on the way to the north.*1*

The problem

In the face of this general tendency toward global fraternization, there is a danger that we will all too credulously and naively overlook the forces working against it. The technical generation has grown up believing that all conflicts can be solved by technical means. The breathtaking successes of scientific civilization even turned this belief into a kind of quasi-religious salvation promise. Digitization, automation and artificial intelligence are celebrating triumphs the likes of which humanity has never experienced. No wonder that the optimism nurtured by all these triumphs makes people blind to all dangers. These are, however, omnipresent. Even a sudden and unforeseen event such as a global pandemic may dissolve the beautiful belief in the interconnectedness of all people. How unpleasant was and is even within the European Union the scramble for vaccination doses! The current Austrian chancellor, who at the beginning urged frugality (maximum 200,000 euros), unabashedly put out the fairy tale that the Commission had treated his own and other European countries unfairly.

This occasion demonstrated that we may well find friends everywhere in the world, but in times of need it is only our own neighbors and our own government that can help us. Only they are able to provide their citizens with the desired level of security and standard of living. Cosmopolitanism that so gloriously flourishes in the realm of the mind proves impotent when it comes to providing those very services that local people are looking for in emergency situations. As, in such cases, spatial proximity counts more than anything else, everyone is next to himself in need. Even the United Europe must constantly fight against national egoisms.

This problem becomes truly massive and frightening,

once we take a closer look at modern technical civilization itself. For technology has a double face that optimists do not want to acknowledge. On the one hand it is responsible for our greatest triumphs, on the other hand for an apocalypse that nobody can rule out any longer. The pan-happiness philosophy of the millennials, who would like to grant and allocate the same material blessing to all people of the globe, is contradicted by the laws of physics. From a scientific point of view, the realization of this program is simply impossible. To exist sustainably on our globe with renewable energy requires either that three quarters of humanity mysteriously disappear, or that humanity at its current population level of about eight billion reduce its energy consumption to one quarter (and that’s just talking about energy, not yet about all other non-renewable resources).*2*

It is absolutely correct when Steven Pinker and Hans Rosling insist in their books that mankind is materially better off than ever before in terms of almost all relevant indicators, but this amazing feat could only be achieved because we consume far more renewable energy than a single globe can provide. We do so by using dwindling reserves of fossil fuels, whose residues furthermore contribute to the poisoning of nature on an ever increasing scale.

This is the existential problem of our time,

and it is not a technical task that can be solved in a technical way, but a challenge for political and ethical man. In the extreme, only two solutions come into question. Either a scramble for the last remaining resources leading to wars, which the strongest powers of the globe incite against the weaker ones and of course against nature. Or a global agreement that all are committed to the preservation of the globe and thus to a way of life that requires a total departure from that which still prevails today.

How do Millennials respond

to this shattering of the technocratic ideology with which they themselves have grown up and been indoctrinated? They use to respond in three different ways. Either they simply deny the facts (thus siding with Donald Trump); or, second, they are optimists on principle and believe in future technological miracles; or, third, they call for demonstrations, usually blaming some evil forces.

Denial is the prevailing attitude – against all evidence from scientific expertise. Homo technicus is prone to let himself be guided by wishful thinking when evidence threatens to shake his optimism. Optimists have always found it particularly difficult to admit that the world is perhaps not quite as well set up as they would like.

If, however, the evidence of an irresponsible consumption of resources and an increasing poisoning of the globe can no longer be denied, there still remains a messianic belief in miracles. Then nuclear power is supposed to achieve what renewable energies alone will never be able to do, namely to maintain the current standard of living and at the same time to reduce CO2 emissions to a tolerable level. Apart from the fact that this is impossible in purely quantitative terms due to dwindling uranium deposits, the dangers associated with this technology tend to be blissfully ignored. However, they are just as great, if not greater, than those of global warming. And it tends to be completely overlooked that energy is used for the conversion of non-energy resources – and these are dwindling as well. The belief in future miracles, which homo technicus has nurtured over two centuries and which today is just as much at home in China and India as in Europe and the US, arguably constitutes mankind’s greatest delusion. It makes us run blindly to our doom because until shortly before the catastrophe we hope for a deus ex machina who will avert all disaster .*3*

Seen, from this perspective, political activism,

expressed worldwide in demonstrations, seems to be hardly more than a diversionary maneuver. The “Fridays for Future” movement fully recognized the urgency of the environmental situation, but it was mistaken in its assessment of the true causes. It is not “them up there” who are responsible for the destruction of the globe, but “us down here,” that is, all of us together, because “them up there” usually only enforce a majority will – at least when it comes to an accepted standard of living. This applies to democratic states of the West as well as to autocratic regimes in China and Russia. A majority of the world’s population – especially, of course, the developing countries – would not accept radical sacrifice, certainly not when a truly sustainable economy requires a reduction of the global ecological footprint to the fourth part of today’s level.

Not renunciation but a global scramble

over dwindling resources and mutual accusations of excessive nature poisoning are therefore in store for us in the near future. Just as in a pandemic, where every nation first thinks of itself, it first enhances and protects the standard of living for its own citizens. That is, why in times of need and struggle all those national provisos that the Millennials fought against and wanted to abolish forever creep up again. The U.S. is home to about twenty million Asian-born citizens, most of them of Chinese origin. Now that China has become a serious rival for the U.S. and threatens to become number one in terms of power and standard of living, tensions between the two superpowers are rising sharply. Prejudices against the Chinese are reviving in America just as they are reviving in China against the West. Nationalistically motivated “hate crimes” have become the order of the day.

On a smaller and, fortunately, far more benign scale, we find this tussle also within the EU, where Hungary and Poland, but also the Czech Republic and Slovakia, insist on their national autonomy and elect autocracy-prone governments that endanger European unity. If it is true that the struggle for dwindling resources in a world that abhors sacrifice will become the portent of the 21st century, then we are heading for a time that will bring about the opposite of cosmopolitanism, namely increasing national egoism. Even if the EU succeeds in welding Europe together into a stable entity, it will be faced as a whole with the prospect of having to fight with the rest of the world over its interests.

It is therefore too early for a requiem of the nation states

Germany (but also Austria, France, etc.) will continue to exist, even if they eventually merge with other states in the EU. Homo technicus universalis therefore remains an illusion, albeit one that arouses some sympathy because it conjures up the common ground connecting modern people. It remains an illusion not only because cosmopolitanism does not provide help in emergencies – only the political community in which we are rooted can do this. But homo technicus is incomplete for still another reason. We may indeed completely dispose of all narratives related to the past and in this way create ahistorical man, but this procedure does not eliminate the basic need of man for a narrative that gives meaning and purpose to his life. Neither technology nor science can provide such meaning (even if both can at times completely satisfy individual life, because common tasks and shared work represent precisely this overriding meaning beyond technology itself).

In perverted form, history has

never lost its dominance. A Chinese technician may be confusingly similar to his counterpart in the US as regards thinking and habits of life; this will not prevent the one from using his skills and knowledge for the power and wealth of China, while the other does so for the power and wealth of the United States of America. Thus, one of them may be developing the weapons with which to wipe out the US in the case of a nuclear war, while his counterpart fulfills exactly the same task for his own country. Which means that our demand for the equality of all people proves to be impotent in the face of history dominating us in the shape of elementary material interests.

And this modern day history, which we see re-entering through the back door, is much more primitive than that which the Millennials disposed of through the front door. It expresses itself in the form of such populist prejudices as promulgated by Donald Trump on a daily basis, when, to mention just one example, he spoke of the “Chinese virus.” Homo technicus is easily seduced by the fake news of modern history when it comes to defending his interests.

This brings to light the fundamental conflict

that will accompany us through the 21st century. On the one hand, the uniform technical civilization that prevails worldwide has given rise to homo technicus, thereby creating an awareness, especially in young people, of the equality of all human beings. But, on the other hand, this civilization has nurtured the claim to a standard of living that can no longer be met in a world of eight billion people faced with dwindling resources and a rampant poisoning of nature.*4* The scramble for this claim inevitably leads to a struggle against all rivals who threaten a nation’s position. 

History falsely declared to be dead

thus returns. The fratricidal struggle, fed by hostile narratives, which once divided the peoples of Europe in centuries-long battles, has only been shifted to a higher plane. Tribal claims and identities remain, but not in the harmless form of patriotism, i.e. love for one’s homeland and a shared history, but as ideological delusions of uniqueness of Europeans, Yankees, Chinese etc. These delusions tend to be much cruder and primitive, because they consist less in the loving reminiscence of one’s own past (so far as it deserves such treatment) than in the denunciation of rivals. The race of nations currently taking place between the great powers of the US, China, Russia and Europe is laden with populist denunciation – in view of the unending progress of weapons this constitutes an imminent danger.

The problem is further aggravated by the fact

that it is of no use if only one part of the world, say Germany, pulls the emergency brake. Germany is only responsible for a minimal two percent of total CO2 emissions. Of course, it could boast of being a role model if it also reduced the remaining two to a mere zero percent. But what is the point if others don’t follow suit, but end up just being happy that the Germans are no longer a rival because they are abandoning their previous industrial power and sinking into a state of poverty? Therein lies the real challenge of the 21st century, which can only be overcome if humanity submits to a common authority that imposes the same sacrifice on everyone at the same time – in the most favorable but rather unlikely case, this would be the UN. Then – but only then – the consciousness of the equality of mankind could bring about that eternal peace, which Immanuel Kant had conjured up more than two hundred years ago.

*1* An impressive testimony to this idealism is provided by the Indian-born author Parag Khanna with his book: “The Age of Migration”. On almost five hundred pages, the author deals with God and the world from A to Z. Khanna seems to take climate crisis for granted – even in its most catastrophic form with an increase in average temperatures of up to four degrees. This serves him well because he preaches the gospel of unrestricted migration which, according to him, will provide for mankind’s ultimate salvation. Here, fraternization is not a politically thought-out program, but is administered to the reader like a drug.

*2* In its latest issue, “Der Spiegel” calls for optimism in the title essay (Spg 14.21: “Hope dies last”). But like any other citizen, the Spiegel author too must rely on what leading experts say. And these – starting from Herman Daly, the intellectual guide of the ecological movement, up to William Rees, the inventor of the ecological footprint – say something completely different.

*3* In the article mentioned above, Der Spiegel shows how wishful thinking works. On the one hand, we find the following passage: “It is certainly an imperative of responsibility to make decisions on the basis of currently available knowledge.” But shortly thereafter, this sober statement is invalidated: “An English saying is: Expect the unexpected. Men, especially Germans, are not very good at this.” So: Dear Germans, please believe in the Deus ex Machina!

*4* Here, too, Der Spiegel preaches wishful thinking. It is correct that the world population “will /grow/ by about two billion to then almost ten billion people by 2050, yes, and that will lead to severe crises in some regions. However, in terms of world population as a whole, growth will slow down after that and will only be problematic in a few areas.” Really? Is it no longer problematic if all these ten billion people together then consume four and more globes? And what to make of the following statement: “The goal of a maximum warming of two degrees by the year 2100 is within reach. If countries stick to their pledges… global average temperatures will rise 2.1 degrees by 2100.” Yes, but what if they don’t stick to their pledges? So far, there is no indication that Western countries, let alone developing countries, will be able to meet these pledges and impose the above mentioned sacrifices on their populations.

The United States in a debt binge – role model for the rest of the world?

Dear Mr. Lingens /Austrian Author and economist/, I don’t know if you are doing well to sing the praises of the beauty of debt while comparing little Austria with the big US. Remember, since about the 1990s, not only the whole world, but also many Americans are beginning to talk about the decline of their country (and the most clear-sighted observers of the U.S. are still to be found in the US themselves). Continue reading The United States in a debt binge – role model for the rest of the world?

Difficult truth – cheap lies

In times of the Internet, historical memory shrinks. Who remembers today that for almost half a century the United States of America represented the realm of enlightenment, truth and progress, while the other side of the Iron Curtain was ruled by arbitrariness, gulags and politically decreed lies? This contrast was inflated by mutual propaganda, certainly, but forced labor camps and those millions of people Stalin had sent to their deaths were bitter reality. There was so little doubt concerning this gruesome past that Solzhenitsyn’s accusations were read worldwide, that is even in Russia. When Gorbachev finally dared to say the truth, the collapse of the regime was inevitable.

Continue reading Difficult truth – cheap lies

Adam Tooze – An experts’s review of ten years of global economic crisis

Recently (on 14 August) I had the good fortune to follow an interview with the British historian Adam Tooze on Austrian Radio. I was so impressed that I immediately took to reading his book “Crashed. How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World” (Allen Lane 2018) ) – and so an important work finally reached me with a two-year delay. These are my comments:

Continue reading Adam Tooze – An experts’s review of ten years of global economic crisis

Strong Men, Weak Peoples – the Uncertain Future of Democracy

A critical reviewer would probably have to accompany this essay in the manner of Wikipedia: “additional evidence required”. Nevertheless, I dare to publish it, because I fear that there will never be enough evidence on this topic – but instead lots of different opinions. What I may offer the reader are mere impressions, everyone may supplement them in his own way and with his – hopefully better – knowledge. Continue reading Strong Men, Weak Peoples – the Uncertain Future of Democracy

Fake Reality – two Reasons why even the Greens are only telling half the Truth about Climate Change

Dedicated to William E. Rees Continue reading Fake Reality – two Reasons why even the Greens are only telling half the Truth about Climate Change