In his most recent book The utopia of socialism the Jena sociologist Klaus Dörre discusses how an ecological transformation that is socially acceptable could be initiated. How far does the traffic light coalition come on this path? Or is it completely built in by the FDP?
Friday: Mr. Dörre, let’s imagine it was 1983 and at that time there would have been a chance that the SPD, the Greens and the FDP would form a government. That could have been the starting point for an exciting eco-socialist project.
Klaus Dörre: Definitely. Even if back then it was no longer the FDP of the Freiburg Theses, which called for the socialization of key industries. But at least there was still a strong civil rights wing. Many Greens saw themselves as eco-socialists and in the SPD, figureheads like Oskar Lafontaine represented a left reform course.
Four decades later, the situation looks a little different – right?
Today the FDP is primarily against tax increases. In the Ampel-Coalition it blocked the necessary social redistribution in favor of the small purse: there will be no reform of the income and inheritance tax, nor the introduction of a wealth tax.
Was the SPD too weak to assert itself here?
It has prevailed for the minimum wage, but that is not enough: the redistribution would have to cover the entire lower segment of income. In addition, there is the huge political mistake of sticking to the sanctions at Hartz IV. In contrast to the Greens, the Social Democrats themselves decided against abolishing the obligation to cooperate with Hartz IV in the long term.
Why is the SPD so attached to this pressure instrument?
This has to do with the resentment of low-income earners, which can also be found in trade unions: Those who work hard and still earn little should be placed in a significantly better position than the unemployed. The surveillance apparatus in the job centers does not have any positive effects, is enormously expensive and stigmatizing – and makes all low-wage women vulnerable to blackmail. A citizen’s money with sanctions is not a citizen’s money.
So there is no trace of eco-socialism in the traffic lights?
Eco-socialist approaches can only be found in the Green Youth. But at least the Greens tried a little with the abolition of the EEG surcharge. And the coalition agreement stipulates that there will be climate money, but to what extent remains completely unclear – and the finance minister is Christian Lindner. Redistribution is falling short in the climate change.
At the same time, the cost of living is already rising.
And that is just the beginning. The more sustainable production is, the more the prices of food, energy and other goods will rise. Climate money cannot compensate for this, unfortunately we are seeing that in Switzerland. In order to prevent the freely disposable income of the small wallets from becoming ever smaller, the very large incomes and assets would have to be used for redistribution. The FDP, as the actual prohibition party, is against it.
Angelika Osthues / Photography / Münster
Klaus Dörre, Born in 1957, is professor of work, industrial and economic sociology in Jena and a close companion of the climate movement and the trade unions. His book The utopia of socialism. Compass for a sustainability revolution was published by Matthes & Seitz in autumn
Power lines and wind turbines are necessary for the ecological conversion. In the coalition agreement there is much talk of accelerating the planning and approval process. Will the Greens encounter local resistance from their own clientele here?
Often, with public participation, the resolutions that have mostly already been taken are legitimized retrospectively through a sham participation.
A “hands-on trap”?
I consider this to be a system error. Actually, the democratic participation should happen before the decision. Once decisions have been made, they have to be implemented, and quickly. In my opinion, with such planning processes, a negotiation process should take place in advance with the involvement of climate councils between the levels involved: between the municipalities directly affected, the state and, if necessary, the federal government. Different interests have to be integrated here. Of course, that also takes time. But I think it is the only feasible way to overcome the current pincer crisis and even to achieve the targeted climate targets.
What is meant by the expression “pincer crisis”?
The most important means of pacifying social conflicts under capitalism is the generation of economic growth according to the criteria of gross domestic product, which is still associated with high energy and resource consumption and corresponding emissions. If economic growth is absent or remains weak, social hardship increases, but if it is strong, climate change and species extinction are promoted.
A dilemma.
From which there are two possible ways out: Either we succeed in making economic growth sustainable and ecological, or we create a society that succeeds in emancipating itself from the pressure of rapid, permanent economic growth.
In which of these ways is the CO2 tax found?
Unfortunately, the CO2 tax does not affect production because it applies to consumers. The majority of the emissions, however, arise in production. The focus here is too one-sided on the market and technology.
For social reasons, the Ampel-Coalition decided not to raise it any further.
Which means that the steering effect is too low.
What if it is greatly increased?
Then there is a social problem. Then we get – in the best case! – the yellow vests movement. Which, by the way, ended up working closely with the climate movement in France!
In Germany, the protest comes from the AfD, for example against a speed limit or an exit from a combustion engine. The traffic light now dispenses with prohibitions and relies on technologies.
Behind the traffic light policy is the illusion that we can continue as before. For example, green hydrogen is to be used for the enormously CO2-intensive steel production. They also want to push the switch to e-mobility. Which, however, is linked to the question of where the electricity comes from. If this is not fed by renewable energies and coupled with a circular economy in battery operation, the ecological footprint would be even greater than with conventional combustion engines.
In your opinion, we can’t avoid doing without?
It has to be about producing fewer, but more durable goods. This increases prices, which in turn requires that wages and social benefits are high enough that the products can still be paid for.
In your book you show how important it is for an eco-socialist perspective to look at how institutions work. With this you come across a gap in left theory formation. The subject has largely been left to conservative thinkers.
I would sign that right away, without being able to solve the problem now. The Marxist theory of the state, for example by the Greek-French political scientist Nicos Poulantzas, was still widely received in the movement critical of globalization. She stopped at the realization that the state is not a homogeneous entity, but that it consists of contested machines. The gravity or the dead weight of institutions or the question of how to use them to achieve certain goals has not received enough attention from the Marxist side.
Why do we need this institutional analysis from a left perspective?
For example, the question of whether to govern or not is unnecessarily exaggerated on the left into an all or nothing question. The question is rather under what conditions and with what aim. You govern with a certain administrative apparatus and with institutions that develop something like their own logic, on which a government is, however, dependent to a certain extent.
And you have to understand this intrinsic logic in order to be able to intervene in administrative action.
In concrete terms: if we succeeded in aligning the authorities’ apparatus with the 17 sustainability goals as decided by the United Nations, a lot would be gained. For example the state development companies that are supposed to implement economic and industrial policy. The ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, which pointed to deficits in the federal government in terms of climate protection, suggests something like that.
Whoever has the means of production sets the course for social development. Many leftists believe that the climate change can only be achieved with a revolution in property relations – expropriation and socialization. How do you see it
All in all, a third of economic output is already generated by cooperatives and other companies that are not oriented towards the profit principle. In addition, private property is not private property. Even within capitalist property, it makes a difference whether works councils or unions are involved in investment decisions or not, as is currently the case. There is also the possibility of developing new forms of collective ownership for large companies, in which, for example, employee companies also have to answer to civil society.
What role do small and medium-sized companies play in your utopia of an eco-socialist society?
I think that companies working under competitive market conditions are more conducive to innovation than state-owned companies. They should not be expropriated, nor merely tolerated, but rather encouraged. For example, by creating the possibility that the competing companies can help each other out with suitably qualified employees in the event of a shortage of skilled workers.
Eco-socialism sounds very unrealistic.
Some of its elements must and can be developed now. This includes practicing and experimenting with alternatives in the niches that the capitalist system leaves us. We have to fight for the expansion of co-determination options in the companies and thereby involve civil society forces from the climate or women’s movement who have so far been operating outside the company.
Companies will be happy about that …
This is where I expect most of the resistance. But it is also important not to fall into pseudo-radicalism in social movements. Calls for an election boycott, as they were recently heard during the climate strike in Jena as a minority position, I consider counterproductive to initiate political changes. It is much more effective to put the political decision-makers under pressure, then negotiate with them and finally get involved in parties in order to change the balance of power.
But we are still a long way from that.
Sometimes it just takes a small step. For example, the government could have said to a troubled corporation like Lufthansa: You will only receive government dough if you convert the money into employee shares. That would have been a great, but easy to implement, path in the eco-socialist direction.
.