September 2023
____________________________________
The climate crisis and the degradation of eco systems is increasingly determining the political agenda. How we live and work, what we produce and consume, our sources of energy and resources, our infrastructure – almost everything is in question.
The climate and environmental crises are no longer abstract scenarios. The facts are abundant and well known.
• Wild fires break all previous records.
• Globally glaciers are shrinking.
• Heat records, droughts, hurricanes, floods. Parts of the world reach the threshold of uninhabitability.
• Insect populations are shrinking dramatically.
• Biodiversity is disappearing at a rapid pace.
• An estimated 150 million tonnes of plastic are floating in the world’s oceans.
The first lesson the left has to learn: The environment is not an additional aspect to be taken into account, is not a „nice to have“, but the basis of everything.
This situation of increasing dangers and diminishing certainties is unpleasant and without historical precedent. But intellectually we are not entirely naked. In principle, in abstract terms, we know what should be done. This new situation demands global cooperation instead of rivalry, much more equality and fairness in the process of restructuring, coordinated efforts to green the world economy and to stop polluting businesses.
The reality, however, is the opposite: the Ukraine war and rising geopolitical conflict, a widening gap between rich and poor, national competition with sanctions and subsidies. In addition, large segments of society are afraid of deep changes and deny the challenges. Politically, it is easier to defend existing jobs, incomes and traditions than to change and deeply reform our way of living. Once moderate climate policies are implemented without due consideration of distributional effects the attitude of defense and denial becomes even stronger. That is the current situation in Germany.
The second lesson for the left: We do have some vague, abstract ideas, but nothing that resembles strong and trustworthy positions which allow us to participate strongly in the political arena. Against denialism and nationalism as well as beyond green capitalism we have to develop a third option. To build this third option is difficult. It is new. It is intellectually demanding. It is unclear which are the right alliances. Not to forget: there is some denialism within the left itself and there is a huge lack of ecological and economic literacy. Despite all difficulties and obstacles we have to stick to the conviction that the left can only be re-established on an ecological basis.
Against all odds and despite the current political landscape a nenewed left has the potential of attracting massive support. I argue that the majority of people – in Europe and elsewhere – would choose a reasonable life if they, the majority, actually had that choice. Polls show the priorities:
• Much less inequality
• Universal basic services
• Much less luxury consumption
• Change the energy system quickly – but fairly and equitably
• Freedom from arbitrariness and paternalism
• Sovereignty over one’s own life
• More democracy (including more direct democracy)
• Civilised peacekeeping and peaceful resolution of international conflicts.
Last year, the opinion research institute KANTAR (formerly Emnid) conducted a survey on „Climate protection and social cohesion in Germany“. The results are surprising and inspiring:
• 80 percent of people in Germany are concerned about climate change.
• 71 percent expect politicians to come up with a comprehensive plan that should be implemented quickly.
• People want a framework that provides more clarity: Thus, 66 percent of those surveyed are in favour of more regulations and rules so that each of us does enough to protect the climate.
• Climate protection is particularly attractive if it is accompanied by a recognisable strengthening or enrichment of the community. For example, 84 percent of all respondents support the introduction of free local public transport.
We all know: polls have to be taken with care. It’s easy to present yourself as a caring and responsible person, but much harder to act like that. Nonetheless, the spirit of common welfare is alive. There will always be heated debates about the right ways and means. But one thing is clear: politics in this sense of a reasonable life could count on broad support. And I would go even one step further: Only with such a positive and mobilising vision do we have a chance to limit the upcoming dangers effectively, quickly and with broad commitment.
Lesson number three: Be confident that there is a strong preference for cooperation and equality in society, for sound and fair transformation.
As a consequence of these lessons and in order to inspire and activate the popular will (currently sleeping under the surface, while denialists and nationalists are conquering the streets) the left has to offer new proposals. These proposals have to be sufficiently radical to meet the challenges and sufficiently realistic to be accomplished. Currently, neither green parties nor climate movements have positive visions for a livable future.
What would a popular restructuring programme – fully ecological and fully just – look like?
The first element, of course, would be a comprehensive climate action plan with binding targets, interim goals and with crystal-clear fairness as its principle.
The appropriate means will be determined without taboos and without respect for privileges. A comprehensive climate plan requires lots of planning by and subsidies from the public sector.
Therefore, the second element is an active state leaving current budget restraints behind.
As we all know, in times of financial crises, virus challenges or wars the state can mobilize massive amounts of money. Why should state subsidies for big banks and for Corona losses be allowed, but not for the life support systems of present and future generations?
Thirdly, we would massively restructure the tax system: strong redistribution from rich to poor, from private to public.
We would do what is necessary for ecological reasons anyway: end idiotic luxury consumption with a suitable tax policy. If you ask people which spread of income is fair, the answers tend towards „one to five“ or „one to ten“. The reality, however, is „one to twenty-five thousand“. That offends everybody‘s sense of justice.
In the age of overlapping emergencies, such absurdities are not tolerable. Therefore, let’s propose to kill two birds with one stone. Make luxury consumption impossible and ensure more justice at the same time – with heavily modified income, wealth and inheritance taxes.
The fourth element is the most difficult one: the necessary reallocation of labour and primary incomes.
Strong redistribution from top to bottom and from private to public, has a consequence that needs to be understood. If we severely curtail the income of the rich, the demand for luxury goods will shrink. Many a travel agency specialising in expensive luxury tours will have to close. The sales of manufacturers of yachts, expensive kitchens and luxury cars are declining. In Germany Mercedes, Porsche, BMW and Audi will feel the effects. Because millions of jobs depend on the production of luxury goods, we need reliable solutions to this problem. This is the tricky part, but it needs to be addressed.
One hundred years after the establishment of the eight-hour-work-day it is perhaps time for another
big leap: why not introduce the six-hour-work-day or the four-day-working-week (as currently discussed in the German steel industry). Consequently, lower incomes must rise and social insurances must get a more solid foundation. This means:
• 20 Euro minimum wage in rich countries.
• Mandatory social security systems for everybody and social security contributions from all types of income.
• A job guarantee by the state so that the fear of unemployment disappears. In view of the constantly invoked shortage of skilled workers, this should not be a problem in principle. This job guarantee must be accompanied by generously designed retraining.
Of course, a popular restructuring programme would have to offer much more:
• Liberating housing from markets and – following the example of Vienna – ensuring that most rental housing ends up in public or cooperative hands. Expropriating large rental housing stocks from private corporations seems to be drastic step, but was supported by a majority of voters in a referendum held in Berlin two years ago.
• Rethinking the question of ownership in the economy. First, in intellectual creation. If we want to master ecological dangers, the necessary technical knowledge should be available globally and freely. What is ecologically important should not be subject to payment barriers or artificial scarcity. Second, the question of ownership could also be raised again for manufacturing. It is obvious that the imminent restructuring of industrial societies can be better managed if employees become self-confident producers.
Finally, I want to address the obvious question:
Does such a vision have a chance?
We can all imagine the answers: sounds good, but is pure utopia, far removed from reality.
The suspicion of utopia cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. It is difficult to form a consensus on restructuring and to forge alliances for its implementation. There are many opponents and obstacles:
• The wealthy and rich, banks and funds, corporations and media power.
• Parties and trade unions restricted to what seems realistic.
• Constraints of EU integration and global economic interdependence.
• Traditional habits and norms.
What can be done to counter the suspicion of utopia?
Business as usual is an illusion that, if continued, will lead to global chaos. The only rational course of action is change by design, not by disaster. Previous advances also had powerful opponents. Nevertheless:
• Slavery was abolished.
• Liberation from dictatorships was achieved
• The rule of law and the right to vote were established – at first for a few, then for all.
• 90 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal brought about spectacular change, a completely unexpected left-wing turn.
More recently, the election campaigns of Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and Jean-Luc Mélenchon are signs of hope. They may not have won, but they have received support that no one had previously expected. The campaigns of Sanders, Corbyn and Mélenchon proved:
• The progressive potential is much stronger than expected, can be mobilised and organised.
• The power of the establishment (business, parties, media) is nowhere as strong as it appears.
• New ideas find resonance if they are radical in a „grounded“ way.
Despite all its current mobilization and strategy problems „Fridays for Future“ is another example: from individual protest in front of the Swedish Parliament to a movement with millions of young people worldwide.
There are also examples of unexpected progress in Germany. Opposition to the TTIP and CETA trade agreements has been massive and has forced the EU Commission to reform. There was a successful referendum to take back energy grids into public hands in Hamburg ten years ago. In 2021 the majority of Berlin residents voted to expropriate large real estate corporations.
These were referendums against the entire political, economic and media establishment. People become active when real and tangible improvements become possible through their own actions, when they have an influence on what happens in their own city, in their own region.
Therefore, let us not be afraid of well-defined, legitimate confrontation:
• Propose and fight for a comprehensive climate plan.
• Stop the ecological crimes of multimillionaires and billionaires.
• Tax away all luxury consumption.
• Redistribute wealth and income.
• Diminish fear and denialism with job guarantees, reductions of work time and a 20 Euro minimum wage.
• Establish more direct democracy with referendums at all levels.
With these and similar demands, a renewed left could set new standards and change the discussion.
What seemed unthinkable will become possible.
Paper presented at the
transform! yearbook 2023 Conference: ‘Facing the State. Left Analyses and Perspectives’
Athens, September 2023
