Germany’s Red-Green Romeo

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (12)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  Mr. Fischer personifies the rightward shift of the left over the past three decades, proving that this is not a uniquely Democratic Party phenomenon.  These are people who have made their peace with capitalism and have given up on the ideas of their youth.  The death of the left i.e. reformism, is an international phenomenon, and its causes are deeply rooted in the bankruptcy of reformism itself and the irretrievable crisis of global capitalism.  Leftists today still have many illusions, about saving social security, or any other of the “gains” of the welfare state.  When they are in positions of power they realize they are not the masters, and that the state is the property of the bankers and industrialists.  This doesn’t stop them from using increasingly innocuous versions of the old leftist rhetoric. 

  The rulers’ strategy is the same in every country on earth regardless of who is in power: abroad, gain as much economic/military/strategic power as possible; at home, dismantle the welfare state.  The differences that might exists are of a purely tactical nature. The red-green government in Germany has done more to weaken the welfare state than anything the conservatives could have dreamed of.  This is the same for New Labour in the U.K, the DLC of Clinton, and the Jospin socialists in France, just to give a few examples.

  The left is gone, dead forever; the welfare state is dissapearing forever, reformism is no longer possible, the old transatlantic alliance is history and it is time to face the music.

  What to do about this?  My suggestion is that you ask yourself this question: what exactly does the word SOVIET mean?  Find out.  There’s your answer.

  Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Feb 23, 2005 at 3:09 PM

  A few notes here: First, what makes Fischer such a success is primarily that he is committed, he’s got brains (next to him Dubya is like a golf ball to the Matterhorn), he is very articulate and he is tough. I heard Fischer hold a speech and a Q&A;session near Frankfurt in 1986, and was fascinated by his grasp of facts and his ability to put them together off the cuff. As for this Fundi and Realo question: The Fundis I respect to this day for their orthodoxy, but the old question was really: Do we get into the skin of the dragon and do as much as possible to change the beast, or will the Greens remain forever outsiders. The Fundis had not a chance: Germany, like the world, was changing in the 80s and 90s, and they refused to actually make any real sense for a highly industrialized nation. The impetus of the 70s was stymied, people were tired of all the demos, etc… Somehow they struck a balance, where the Fundis still had their input, and the party itself remains very democratic, as far as I can tell.

  As for the “dismantling” of the welfare state in Germany (and England, etc… as a matter of fact): The welfare state is a priviledge earned from decades of struggle. But even I, an old lefty, had to admit at one point that it was being abused to the max. It doesn’t do any good to just blame one party for the dismantling. All this came together with enormous pressure from the unions to reduce the work week, increase pay, increase vacation time etc… Plus the rebuilding of East Germany which as of 2002 had sucked up 12 times the entire amount puimped into Europe by the Marshall Plan. Germany could ill afford this, esp. with the world economy shaking. As for the conservatives, they are in fact very much responsible for forcing the Hartz IV program onto Germany. They did what the neocons have been doing in the USA since Reagan: creating debt. And that came together with the Euro 3% rule, which forced the governments to reduce their debt.

  When it all adds up: The Welfare State was no longer feasible as it used to be. I don’t know if this is a general rule, but I knew at least 10 people on unemployment who enjoyed the good life, without making the slightest gesture to find work. Offices on Monday morning were empty because of illness, Friday as well, esp. if the Thursday had been a holiday. There was real abuse, and I saw it with my own eyes, I even got into arguments with people about it. (I myself am a freelancer, so I don’ know what a sick day is, or a paid vacation, but when someone offers me one (it has happened), I am thankful and don’t abuse it).

  If there is any problem with Germany at the current time, it’s because the Socialists have several genuine blockheads in the ministries, foremost Hans Eichel the finance minister. Germany could use some serious tax reduction and some loosening of all the accounting constraints on companies that compel especially the SMEs to keep legions of bookkeepers on hand. But right now, they are kowtowing to the Big Enterprises because unemployment is sky high. These old Industrial Socialists have forgotten, apparently, that Germany’s true economic strength lay in its small and medium enterprises, which were decentralized (i.e. found all over the country), highly flexible, highly innovative and highly productive. They are often family run, by people who are committed to their work for the long term. They feel and act on a sense of responsibility for their communities (I worked in and with several). They can hardly move. And now with the dollar in the cellar, their big market USA has more or less vanished. But the current government is still letting itself be held hostage by the biggies (see Siemens last year threatening to close many of its operations...).

  True the left has pretty much had it. But so has the right. These two energies belonged to an old paradigm, and they are no oonger valid. We have chaos now, which is the first step in reshaping a pattern. Are we as individuals going to take responsibility? Or will we let the Corporation take over by controlling what we eat, drink, wear and telephone with?

  Welcome to the Brave New World. It’s so pleasant to be a slave.

  Soviet means council.

  Posted by Talleyrand on Feb 23, 2005 at 4:45 PM

  “The soviets are supporting the Vietcong.” Does that statement make any sense?  The councils are supporting the Vietcong.  Why was/is that word used in such a senseless manner?

  Yes soviet means council.  They are a particular form of political organization (usually of workers) that have spontaneously developped throughout history.  They were called “rate” during the German revolution in 1919 and the were called “shura” in Iran in 1979 and “shora” during the Kurdistan uprising in 1991.  The name USSR came out because the country was contolled by soviets for about a year or two, before the Bolshevik party (who held a majority of elected positions in the soviets, and who most vigourously called for soviet power) gradually concentrated power in its hands.

  I am convinced that mankind has come to that point: soviets or barbarism.

  B T W F*CK FISCHER.  He’s a pig like Bush and the rest of those bastards.

  Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Feb 24, 2005 at 3:02 AM

  ****CORRECTION*** Actually soviets have only been around since 1905, unless one counts the Paris commune of 1871.

  Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Feb 24, 2005 at 3:05 AM

  as a German..I was surpised that you have any interest in the romantic part of Fishers life...one little thing to the author of this article
  Buerger not burgher(translation for citizen)..bad proof reading

  Posted by seahawk1 on Feb 25, 2005 at 7:28 AM

  Seahawk1… In English we do refer to them as “burghers” meaning the inhabitants of a town or a prosperous citizen. It’s official.

  Max, I don’t think performing a sexual act with Fischer is a terribly agreeable idea for most of us. And he is certainly not like Bush, I must disagree there.

  I still believe that we are far to accustomed to pointing fingers at politicians (whom we elect, directly or indirectly) for ills that are in part our own doing and undoing. We are currently creating a new social paradigm on our planet, so there is a lot of confusion, I believe. Fischer I remember as one who really did try to prevent the USA from invading Iraq, and I believe he was sincere in his efforts. I believe that because you could see him deteriorating physically by the day. Plain observation.
  And don’t let the smiles and posed handshakes during the recent Bush tour fool you. POliticians, by nature, enjoy not only good food, but healthy doses of shoe polish every now and then. At least publicly. But unless they are stupendously dumb (and a part of me suspects this), neither the Europeans nor the American believe that the tour accompülished anything whatsoever of substance.  George Bush “listening?” With what, pray tell. If you don’t have a brain between you ears, anything going in one ear will exit out the other without encountering an absorption surface. It’s a law of pysics, I am sure.

  Posted by Talleyrand on Feb 27, 2005 at 3:01 AM

  Fischer’s opposition to the Iraq war had nothing whatsoever to do with principle.  I believe the war launched by Bush (made possible by sanctions imposed by Clinton, Chirac et al) has little to do with Iraq per se, but was aimed at the European powers - Germany and France in particular - to put pressure on the European powers through strategic control of Middle Eastern oil supplies, and to block European diplomatic and economic inroads in the region, especially by French, German and Russian imperialisms.  The reason that France and Germany were the most vocal opponents of the US invasion was not because they were champions of peace, but because they understood the real intent of US policy.  France is busy occupying Haiti (alongside US troops) and the Ivory Coast.  German troops are in Kosovo and Afghanistan, breaking with its post WWII policy.  Joschka Fischer, is today the man mainly responsible for his country’s imperialist policy. He is even proud of it, declaring that “For the first time for a long time, Germany is making war in a good cause”.  When was the last time this happened; Germany fighting for a good cause?  Sincere old Joschka.

  The typical analysis of “Bad Bush” is nonsense.  There is little difference between Bush and Clinton, or Kerry or Schroeder or Chirac.  For example, even former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, the most outspoken critic of the Bush administration at the onset of the Iraq invasion, was actually in favor of invading Iraq, but argued that it would have been more effective to use “human rights” and not false claims about Iraqi links to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction. Albright and other administration critics also disagreed with the precipitous rush to act unilaterally in Iraq and favored more patient - and more convincing - efforts to pressure and manipulate the European powers into endorsing the invasion. From this perspective, the European powers would have found it much more difficult to justify their refusal to support a military intervention based on ousting a tyrannical regime and restoring human rights in Iraq. The Bush administration is in deep trouble today because it seriously botched both the ideological campaign to justify the war and the occupation of Iraq.

  The great powers and thier games. 

  Soviets or barbarism.

  Maximillian Al Dakari

  Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Feb 27, 2005 at 3:42 AM

  Max, I see the point, but I still feel it is too easy to just say that in the Irq biz all politicians are equal—whereby their modus operandi tends to be the same. I do agree tentqatively, that the European powers might have jumped on board for the oil hegemony given a proper excuse, but that is highly speculative, and opposition to “the war” is very strong amongst the people, at least in Germany. I live there, by the way. I think the use of the word imperialism is way off to describe Kosovo and Afghanistan.

  Also, and here is where I diverge from your view seriously, there are many levels to this war in Iraq. One you mention, namely the war against Europe. US policy is aimed at causing dissention within the EU, and it has to a certain extent, with several European countries joining in the fray. The war had the same purpose for the Arab world: divide and conquer.

  The other level of the war is for domestic consumption. Without Iraq, George Bush would right now be growing a beard in Crawford happily forgotten, and the evangelicals would be packing up their pitchforks and bemoaning their fates in their little bethels in the mid-west. For the Bush Family Empire, the war was a boon. Anyone with a pea-sized brain will must have realized that the price of oil would go up, and that has enriched the oil companies.

  The list goes on.

  But the mention of the Soviet Union I find interesting, as I have a pet theory about that: The USA can do what it is doing, because the USSR no longer exists per se. We in the West always thought we were keeping the Soviets in check, while in fact it was also the other way round. So the balance of power is now upset.

  But Max, in the end, we are as the human race, just an incident of frightfully negligible proportions in this univers. If we burn up all the fossil fuels, pollute the water, etc..., it won’t make a damned bit of difference. When we croak, don’t make a difference whether you have 1 billion bucks or 0, whether you are the Emir of X country or the unelected president of Y country or just Joe and Jane Schmo. That’s just a philosophical perspective, it might avoid a few ulcers on the way!

  Posted by Talleyrand on Feb 27, 2005 at 12:17 PM

  I think there is a necessary positive correlation between an increaase in diversity (decrease in homogenity of culture) and a decrease in the effectiveness of socialist/communitarian programs.  People do not want “their” money going to someone who looks diffferent, belongs to a different culture, or has different values. 

  As immigration becomes a more prescient problem (yes, problem--not issue) the majority becomes less comfortable with the idea of socialist/communitarian programs.  Look to the treatment of the Roma under the EU.  Look to the fears of Germans about immigrants from the middle east but also former soviet bloc states taking their jobs, even though the only jobs they take are ones that Germans will not do.  And no, traditional leftist organizations such as LABOR have not been in favor of diversity for just these reasons.

  I think that if you look at the countries with the most cited, most successful socialist programs (Namely any Scandinavian country, sometimes Canada) you will find that those same countries are among the LEAST diverse, MOST homogenous countries in the world.

  The left’s support of these two conflicting ideals, diversity and communitarianism, is problematic and demands academic and empirical treatment.

  Posted by Oliver Cromwell on Mar 3, 2005 at 10:04 AM

  I could be mistaken here, but it seems to me that as a socialist culture is established in a nation, what were previously considered differences are tossed by the way-side.  Most ‘diversities’ are nothing but cosmetic oddities, and socialist cultures are more focused on what people have in common than subtle differences they might possess.

  Posted by Kharol on Mar 3, 2005 at 5:30 PM

  Kharol,

  Beyond the lack of empirical material in support of the claim, I find it hard to believe that dialectical materialism is a necessary condition (or an implicit condition) in all communitarian policy.

  Posted by Oliver Cromwell on Mar 4, 2005 at 2:54 PM

  Boys, this is the way to do it. Instead of bitching about Fischer’s deviations we should recognize that this is a person who came out of the New Left with the hopes of bringing what the New Left was about into political society as a legitamate option---and who suceeded in doing so.

  You can complain all you want about the Greens but, truth be told, they did not compromise their beliefs. If by beliefs you mean the basic sorts of principles which make them different from Social Democrats or Liberals.

  Fischer never joined the establishment; he became the establishment. There’s a difference.

  http://leftthought.blogspot.com

  Posted by Summerisle on Mar 5, 2005 at 12:42 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Paul Hockenos

• ‘The Kosovo Dilemma’ goes astray
  The 1999 NATO-led bombing against Serbia was a humanitarian intervention, not a U.S. and European power grab
• Does the E.U. Hate You?
  Despite popular myth, anti-Americanism in Europe isn't on the rise
• Letter From Bucharest
  The NATO Summit was a gigantic flop.
• Germany’s Red-Green Romeo