In the exploratory paper of the SPD, Greens and FDP on a possible traffic light coalition, digitization is in the first paragraph. In the list of the mammoth tasks ahead, it follows directly on from climate change, and only later does the paper speak of “social cohesion” and “safeguarding prosperity”.
The only problem is that it remains unclear what is actually meant by the term “digitization”. According to the election manifestos of the parties, everything should be digitized: The Greens, for example, want to digitize public broadcasting. The FDP wants to boost tourism with digitization. In the case of the SPD, it is power grids, locomotives and wagons. In addition, all three parties have to deal with administration, education and the establishment of a network infrastructure.
We see: In its current use, the word has strayed far from its original meaning as a description of technical processes for converting analog information into digital. In Germany, digitization means, on the one hand, a bundle of technologies such as those summarized under the term “artificial intelligence” – again a fuzzy word cloud – but on the other hand also robotics and networking technologies. At the same time, digitization is used synonymously with transformation and progress. A precise idea of what the individual projects listed in the election programs should mean in practice, i.e. what exactly defines a digitized wagon, why we need it and what the way to get there, cannot be inferred from the statements of the parties.
In fact, “digitization” functions – instead of describing precisely political projects – as a helper for an unimaginative policy that is confronted with the crises of the present. Wherever fundamental questions of distribution, infrastructure and climate justice arise, digitization comes in as an apparent panacea. Nothing else works here than the belief in a quasi non-political progress that can be achieved through technological achievements without fundamental changes in the social order. This mechanism can be explained with three examples.
Digital first, denken second
First, the hopes associated with digitization have to do with the weak growth that has been smoldering in Germany and large parts of the global north since the 1970s. Global overcapacities in industry increase the pressure on employees and slowly crumble old class compromises. Income inequality is increasing, more and more employees are working in the low-wage sector, and demand is falling as a result.
The use of digital technologies should now become a new growth engine – the model is the success of American tech companies. In Germany as an industrialized country, this leads to the “Industry 4.0” discourse: In 2011, German politicians began singing the song of praise for the next “industrial revolution”, in which “digitization” should follow in the footsteps of the steam engine and loom. The hype about “artificial intelligence” works in a similar way. New technologies should deliver growth without addressing distribution issues.
So far, however, there have been two effects instead. On the one hand, by promising more efficient production and increasing purchase, new companies become part of value chains that are already contested and manage to divert profits. However, since these companies are mostly owned by venture capital firms, the profits tend to benefit a few investors. The use of new hardware also has a similar effect. For example, according to current studies, the use of robots brings about a shift in profits to a few superstar companies instead of the broad productivity effects that were hoped for. They have exclusive access to new technologies and thus continue to expand their market power. In the long term, both effects are at the expense of women workers and prevent broader social participation in possible productivity gains.
A second central challenge that politicians are confronted with is the infrastructural weakness, which has been steadily widening since the beginning of the 2000s. The dogmatic adherence to the black zero and debt brake – against the background of the weak growth described above – has caused the public budgets and especially the municipalities to spend too little year after year on maintaining the public infrastructure since 2003. Streets, schools, swimming pools and authorities wear out instead of being maintained or even improved. According to a survey by KfW among the municipalities, the investment backlog there alone is around 150 billion euros.
Here, too, digitization should provide answers. The SPD, Greens and FDP speak of digitized administration, digital education and digitized schools. But the introduction of digital technologies without a fundamental “investment turnaround” is at best a new coat of paint for a crumbling infrastructure. In a joint position paper, BDI and DGB are calling for additional government investments amounting to 0.5 percent of economic output. Current digitization initiatives such as the School Digital Pact with five billion euros or the AI initiative with three billion euros are a long way from this. If the debt brake continues to apply, which is likely, the next government will not operate on the scale required. Union-related institutes have long been pointing out the need for a turnaround in investment, i.e. a concerted strategy to remedy the shortcomings in the public capital stock. However, there is no consensus with the FDP in the government – hence the emphasis on the digital: everyone can agree on this and at the same time spread a semblance of progress and modernization.
Thirdly, it is the climate crisis that calls for an answer. So far Germany’s policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been absolutely inadequate; neither the parties’ election manifestos before the federal election nor the results of the exploratory talks indicate that this will change. Digitization should also provide a remedy here. There is a consensus among the traffic light parties that sustainability policy should be pursued with means in line with the market – in addition to CO₂ pricing, they seem to consider digitization to be central. Here, too, the focus on digital technologies offers an apolitical solution. The state does not have to intervene or hardly ever; instead, new technologies emerge in the “market” – possibly with the right incentives – as alternatives to existing climate-damaging technologies. In order to support this market for new technologies, the SPD, Greens and FDP want to promote venture capital, that is, they want to strengthen a system in which a few companies will skim off large profits, albeit with only dubious climate effects.
Good for the climate? Oh well
In addition, there is the misconception that digital technologies are materialless. Where paper files used to be devoured by trees, now digital files glisten, infinitely reproducible, available everywhere and without a material footprint. But for this apparent detachment it takes huge server farms that consume huge amounts of electricity. Chips built into computers require rare earths and critical raw materials; their production and delivery routes are anything but CO₂-neutral. Overall, the effects of digital technologies on the environment are quite controversial, they would need significantly more political containment in order to have a positive effect.
The arguments listed should not be misunderstood as a plea “against” digitization. Technologies are at their core social tools – and without question central to meeting the challenges of our time. But technologies in general, and digitization technologies in particular, always work within the existing and its contradictions.
Digitization can increase productivity or demand, but it will exacerbate them in an economic system full of power imbalances – between companies and between capital and workers. Digitization can help modernize state infrastructure, but it does not provide a solution to the dogma of austerity. Digitization can have positive climate effects, but it does not resolve the contradiction between capitalism and sustainability. A digital administration is helpful for citizens, but it cannot be created without additional resources and a clear strategy.
“Progress” is never apolitical, and digitization causes progress within the existing system. For the socio-ecological transformation ostensibly aimed at by the coalition partners, however, fundamental political questions of social distribution, state investments and climate-friendly regulation would have to be addressed at the same time.
.