This document discusses the possibility of a "Second Great Transformation" following the first transformation from feudalism to capitalism described by Karl Polanyi. The author argues that the current multidimensional crisis could mark the beginning of a fundamental change revolutionizing all aspects of societal life on a global scale, similar to the first transformation. The neo-liberal capitalism of recent decades has exacerbated this crisis and created a historical crossroads where the interpretation of the crisis will influence how societies choose to respond and develop going forward. The author critiques the mainstream view of transformation as simply a transition to capitalism and democracy, arguing a broader transformation is needed that questions existing power structures and moves toward more just, participatory and sustainable systems.
This document discusses the possibility of a "Second Great Transformation" following the first transformation from feudalism to capitalism described by Karl Polanyi. The author argues that the current multidimensional crisis could mark the beginning of a fundamental change revolutionizing all aspects of societal life on a global scale, similar to the first transformation. The neo-liberal capitalism of recent decades has exacerbated this crisis and created a historical crossroads where the interpretation of the crisis will influence how societies choose to respond and develop going forward. The author critiques the mainstream view of transformation as simply a transition to capitalism and democracy, arguing a broader transformation is needed that questions existing power structures and moves toward more just, participatory and sustainable systems.
This document discusses the possibility of a "Second Great Transformation" following the first transformation from feudalism to capitalism described by Karl Polanyi. The author argues that the current multidimensional crisis could mark the beginning of a fundamental change revolutionizing all aspects of societal life on a global scale, similar to the first transformation. The neo-liberal capitalism of recent decades has exacerbated this crisis and created a historical crossroads where the interpretation of the crisis will influence how societies choose to respond and develop going forward. The author critiques the mainstream view of transformation as simply a transition to capitalism and democracy, arguing a broader transformation is needed that questions existing power structures and moves toward more just, participatory and sustainable systems.
This document discusses the possibility of a "Second Great Transformation" following the first transformation from feudalism to capitalism described by Karl Polanyi. The author argues that the current multidimensional crisis could mark the beginning of a fundamental change revolutionizing all aspects of societal life on a global scale, similar to the first transformation. The neo-liberal capitalism of recent decades has exacerbated this crisis and created a historical crossroads where the interpretation of the crisis will influence how societies choose to respond and develop going forward. The author critiques the mainstream view of transformation as simply a transition to capitalism and democracy, arguing a broader transformation is needed that questions existing power structures and moves toward more just, participatory and sustainable systems.
My point of departure is the question as to the historical locus of the present multidimensional crisis. The difficulty in answering it is that the historical significance of a situation is as a rule difficult to grasp for those living within it. All the greater is the responsibility of intel- lectuals to address such a question. My thesis is: the most recent societal crisis, which has not at all ended with the abatement of the financial crisis and the overcoming of the world eco- nomic crisis, could be seen as the beginning of a fundamental watershed in global develop- ment. Following on The Great Transformation, which Karl Polanyi analysed in his work with that title, nothing less than a Second Great Transformation is now entering onto the histori- cal agenda, a transformation which will revolu- tionise all spheres of societal life on earth. The First Great Transformation encom- passed the transition from feudalism, from the small-scale production of goods, the subsis- tence economy and other pre-capitalist forms, to the capitalist mode of the production of commodities. As a result of this process, which took more than 300 years (Kossok, 1988: 42), profit came to dominate the economy and soci- ety, and the economy was no longer integrated into society; rather society was subordinated to the economy. Nature has been incorporated into the process of the valorisation of capital as if it were limitlessly available, and as if the eco- logical balance could be arbitrarily and without consequence sacrificed to capitalist growth.
THE DISCOURSE ON TRANSFORMATION, 1989 AND 2009
The neo-liberal capitalism of the past decades has driven this development to its climax, and has resulted in the present crisis. This has con- stituted a historical crossroads situation. All societal forces feel constrained to seek answers to the question of which way they want to go in future. The interpretation of a crisis situation itself sets the course for the manner and direc- tion to be taken in dealing with it. Gaining sov- ereignty over that interpretation will mean being able to determine first that reactions to the cri- sis will be in ones own interest. Loss of that sovereignty will put one well on the way to los- ing the battle for the thereafter. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems reasonable to look back to the autumn of 1989 and the ensuing years, from that point of view. The upheavals of history always include an incalculable stock of cognition and experi- ence, be they obtained through victories or de- feats. They can be made to come alive for the
2 tasks of the present. Walter Benjamin wrote: The living at any given time see themselves as being at the noon of history. They are called upon to prepare a meal for the past. The histo- rian is the herald who bids the bygone to dine. (Benjamin, 1984: 155). The challenges of the autumn of 89 were interpreted by the power elites of the West as a task of catch-up modernisation (Zapf 1992) or catch-up revolution (Habermas, 1990) in East Germany and Eastern Europe. Wolf Lepenies findings were: The political class of old West Germany, with few exceptions, turned unifica- tion and its results into a festival of self- affirmation. (Lepenies, 1992: 31). They could count on the desire of the majority of East Ger- mans to gain rapid access to the liberties and the prosperity which the West German model promised. The process of German unification was implemented almost totally as an expan- sion of the structures of the old West Germany into East Germany, as a transfer of institutions, elites and resources from the West to the East. The mainstream of the social sciences ac- companied the transition from state socialism to capitalism with a huge wave of research on transformation, generously funded by outside sources. With the goal of compiling an interna- tional state of the art, Professor Wolfgang Merkel of the Berlin Social Science Research Centre in 1999, in his book Systemtransformati- on. Eine Einfhrung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung [System trans- formation: An introduction to the theoretical and empirical aspects of transformation re- search], summed up what he sees as the sub- stance of transformation processes in our era as being the transition from one system of order to a fundamentally different system. This in- cludes the transition from dictatorships to de- mocracies, from planned and fiat economies to market economies, and the change from closed to open societies. (Merkel, 1999: 15). Yet the perspective of a transformation from represen- tative to participatory democracies, from a profit-oriented market economy to a mixed economy based on solidarity with a strong so- cial property component and a socio-ecological framework limiting the market, from open so- cieties whose openness is in fact to a large ex- tent a fiction due to the social exclusion of large parts of the earths population, to truly open societies with socially equal participation by all of earths citizens in the most elementary condi- tions of a self-determined life all these remain beyond the thought horizon of the established scientific community. The property, command and power relationships of the OECD world have not been called into question. Ulrich Beck made clear what was meant by the transforma- tion concept of the ruling elites: Market econ- omy and no back-talk! This was based on a constricted view of the actual historical challenges pertaining at the end of the twentieth century. State socialism had failed because of the deficits of its basic struc- tures. Its overthrow was long and urgently overdue. However, since the seventies, capital- ism, which had until then been regulated by the welfare state, was also on an ever more con- flict-prone path of neo-liberalism. Radical high- tech changes and globalisation had brought forth increases in wealth, with previously un- dreamed-of opportunities, along with very great dangers for human civilisation. Since the mili- tary coup in Chile in 1973, the implementation of the market-radical economic theory of Milton Friedman was practised there. The dismantling of the welfare state was well underway, particu- larly in the USA and in Great Britain, but had already made progress in Germany, too, before getting a decisive push in the form of Chancel- lor Gerhard Schrders Agenda 2010. The report The Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome had long since spectacularly pointed to the endan- germent of the natural existence conditions of humankind by profit-oriented growth. For the developing countries, the eighties were a lost decade. For that reason, the concept of dual mod- ernisation was developed at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Civilisation Research of the Humboldt University of Berlin, which had emerged from the reform-critical project Mod- ern Socialism 1 (Klein 1990; Klein 1991): a trans-
1 The Institute was encouraged by Jrgen Habermas, Cornelius Castoriades, Gnter Gauss and others of
3 formation process in the West, after two dec- ades of neoliberal development, to a just society of solidarity; and a transformation in the East, designed to acquire the evolutionary potentials of modern bourgeois societies, while carrying its own experiences into a pan-European trans- formation process. Of course this transformation strategy con- tradicted the real relationship of forces. But the question is, in view of todays challenges for anticipatory thinking, whether this fact makes it legitimate for responsibly thinking people, es- pecially intellectuals, to trade in reality- referenced, future-oriented ideas for the accla- mation accruing to politics which ignores the really big questions of our time. Max Weber wrote of such conflicts: For the individual Of course, a constantly recurring problem is whether he must give up hope of the feasibility of his practical results, in view of his awareness of an obvious development trend which makes the implementation of what he strives for seem so improbable that his la- bours, assessed in terms of their chances of success, must appear as sterile, quixotic behav- iour. (Weber 1988: 513). In such cases, Weber considered the possibility that people would tend to surrender their ideals under such pres- sure, and concluded in terms relevant to the present that, In Germany, one seems con- strained to adorn this with the label Realpolitik. At all events, it is not logical for representatives of a science, of all things, to feel the need to do so by constituting itself as a round of ap- plause for the respective development trend (ibid). The specific function of science seems to me just the opposite: To see that which, in con- ventional terms, is natural, as a problem. (ibid: 502). Thus cheered up by Weber, let us turn towards left concepts for a transformational society (Klein, 2002). The crowding out of alternatives in the
his guests, to implement its autonomous develop- ment concept, was positively assessed by Jrgen Kocker and, a year and a half later, was dissolved as incompatible with the academic structures of the old Federal Republic. (Brie, Michael/Klein, Dieter, 1992: 235 ff.) West in 1989 and thereafter favoured an in- creasingly market-radical development of capi- talism and an unfolding of financial-market capi- talism to the point that it led to the recent crisis of the financial system and of the global econ- omy. Together with the mounting damage to the biosphere, especially the danger to climate stability and the reduction of biodiversity, with continued poverty and hunger, an acute food crises, and million-fold deaths in the developing countries from illnesses which are actually already treatable, with wars and with the ero- sion of democracy in many regions of the world where it had been newly established, a societal crisis has emerged which involves our entire civilisation. The Frankfurter Allgemeine of 22 Oct. 2008 wrote regarding this crisis: The situation was so desperate that confidence in the self-healing powers of the market alone would very proba- bly have led to a catastrophe. Then German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrck summarised the feeling in the inner circles of power: We were all looking into the abyss (Der Spiegel, 29 Sep. 2008). In view of the crisis, the European left pre- sented a multitude of demands to rein in the financial markets, to protect the citizens from having the social effects of the crisis dumped on them, and for the consolidation of the econ- omy by future-oriented investment programmes in education, health, infrastructure, and the en- vironment. However, neither in Germany nor in other countries has the left responded to the publicly discussed crisis of neo-liberalism by calling for an alternative societal project. It has not been able to introduce the contours of a just, future-oriented society into the public dis- course and search for answers to the crisis as if a left societal alternative could be reduced to the sum of single demands and projects. At a time when the capitalist regulatory system has been deeply shaken, the power elites delegiti- mised, and the inconsistency and incompe- tence of the prevailing political system made openly apparent, left-radical Realpolitik ought to have been able to make use of this loss of le- gitimacy of the prevailing political system and to transport the inevitability of an emancipatory
4 alternative into the public consciousness without however in the least dispensing with practical measures and reforms in the immedi- ate interest of those blamelessly affected by the crisis. But the left has yet to formulate any such fundamental answer to date, or at least it has failed to bring it into the public discourse in any noticeable way. In Europe, it has since the sec- ond half of the nineties been acting from a posi- tion of weakness. But the time has come to declare to the rulers: Your capitalistically deter- mined transformation is coming to an end; the coming transformation will be an emancipatory, social, ecological and feminist one, the sub- stance of which will, in the long term, mean overcoming capitalism in favour of a just and sustainable society based on solidarity! Its pro- tagonists will have to address both the failure of state socialism and the limits of capitalism. It may bear many names. The modern left will call it democratic socialism. There are many objections to such clear statements. For many, the concept socialism appears discredited by the practice of state so- cialism. Others fear that it will be misunder- stood as a mere utopia, irrelevant to immediate concerns and tasks. Yet others are afraid that programmatic debates about consistent left identities could splinter the left still further. For them, the most important thing is a hitherto unknown readiness for cooperation and com- munication between the various tendencies and protagonists of the left. Susann Georges de- mand to think big, especially in the crisis, is all too easy to ignore, in the face of struggles to ward off the worst effects of that crisis.
FIVE SCENARIOS OF POSSIBLE FUTURES
In 1989, the German and European left were not able to provide a transformation perspective which could also have applied to the West. In the present crossroads constellation, it should definitely learn the lessons from that for con- trary scenarios of possible futures are apparent. For the next ten years or more, the elements of different societal projects will exist next to or in opposition to one another, until the struggles between them are decided for the next phase (Institute for Social Analysis, 1/2009). Five de- velopment paths can be ascertained:
Scenario I
A neo-liberal carrying on as before. We will not describe it here in any detail. From the ex- perience of the past three decades, we all know what such carrying on would mean (Candeias, 2009; Klein, 2008).
Scenario II
A mix of neo-liberal basic tendencies and state intervention to the rescue. The result of this mix could be the paradox of a neo-liberal, state- interventionist capitalism and an unstable tem- porary stability. Half-hearted steps towards regulation of the international financial system and addressing climate change, together with the unbroken power of a finance capital which is now concentrated more strongly than before the acute crisis, are an indication of this. After all, the power elites have, with their emergency parachutes for the banks, their reflationary pro- grammes, and emergency social protective measures, prevented an even deeper crisis. The probability of the realisation of this Scenario II, which is closely related to Scenario I, appears great.
Scenario III
Post-neo-liberal capitalism. Under this scenario, the state and civil society interventions would push forward a Green New Deal more consis- tently than under Scenario II. It could be con- nected to a Public New Deal, i.e. a counter- movement to neo-liberal privatisation, for the expansion of the public sector public goods, public support of basic livelihood and infrastruc- ture, public ownership and public spaces tied to certain elements of the present reflationary programmes, and partially oriented towards Scandinavian experience. The failure of the neo- liberal regulatory path to solve the greatest chal- lenges of our century moves this scenario into the realm of possibility. The weakness of the left would rather tend to negate the probability of
5 this development path in the foreseeable future. But in this scenario too, capitalist property, con- trol and power relations would continually re- strict the unfolding of any new societal logic. At best, the scenario would oscillate between the possibility of an opening for further-reaching transformation processes, and a relapse into Scenario II or even Scenario I.
Scenario IV
De-civilised capitalism. Less probable than Sce- narios I and II, yet not impossible would be an escalation of unsolved problems, and the loss of a capacity of governmentality by the elites that is, rule with the aid of the self-government and self-adaptation of individuals so that the most conservative ruling factions could respond to future major crises with authoritarian re- gimes, violence, militarisation and right-wing extremism. However, it is currently becoming apparent that a modified adherence to neo-liberal capital- ism with the aid of state intervention, with very limited socio-political supports, and with green tendencies is gaining in preference amongst the power elites in many OECD countries. However, in the media-determined formation of public opinion, a new phenomenon is overlaying the continued dominance of profit which deter- mines Realpolitik. It consists of the cultural re- action of the more farsighted amongst the rul- ers, the socially conscious bourgeoisie and the critical educated elites (Neugebauer, 2007; Brie, 2007: 13 pp.) to the shock of the crisis. The still dominant adherence to neo-liberal thinking is now being joined, with the growing support of the media, by a swelling current of more or less diffuse pronouncements in favour of a better, more just, more humane world, for an environ- mental turn-around, and for a world of coopera- tion and solidarity. A bourgeois spirit of saving the earth is wafting through the media (Der Spiegel, no. 30/2007). This is an expression of a wide variety of in- terests, motivations, strategies, intellectual ten- dencies and individual positions. After the de- feats suffered by economic liberalism, tenden- cies toward a revival of an ethical liberalism of responsibility are emerging, and combining with the rise of growing environmental awareness. As a reaction to the imperial, arrogant policies of the Bush administration, Barack Obamas ideas of global cooperation and communication are gaining in importance. Bourgeois humanism is challenged by acute mega-dangers, and is mixing with weakened social-democratic reformism, with the search for new, particularly green, areas of capital accumulation, and with the mobilisation of capitals characteristic ability to incorporate movements and tendencies from below, and to integrate them into its power mechanism. There are plenty of indications that the overall result of these various approaches to a global renaissance of the responsibility princi- ple of Hans Jonas could rather constitute a greater adaptability on the part of the power elites. But this new trend in the intellectual- political arena could harbour opportunities for transformational activity within the context of capitalism, and perhaps beyond that as well. The result could depend to a large degree on the development of the relationship of forces between the ruling classes and a block for a sustainable society of solidarity presently only visible in its beginnings, from the differentiation between the factions of the ruling elites them- selves, and, last but not least, from the pressure of left counter-power upon them. The left should feel alerted by the intensive struggles which have already broken out over the paths to take following the latest crisis, and by the threat of carrying on as before at the highest levels. The extremely ambivalent new discourse about responsibility, which largely declines to address issues of property and power, and disseminates an aura of noncom- mittalism between a hopeful new beginning and the existing power structure in a new guise, also challenges the left to throw its glove into the arena of intellectual-political struggles for hegemony. It is called upon to engage in radical Realpolitik. This includes the further concrete development of its offered project in all key pol- icy areas, work on them in initiatives, move- ments, parliaments, administrations, businesses and governments, and the building of alliances
6 to improve the situation of the citizens through their own efforts. However, left radical Realpoli- tik also includes designs for an alternative socie- tal project, the ideas of which would provide direction and a goal to the entire range of single political offers. The challenge to the interna- tional left in the presently still open crossroads situation is the practical and theoretical concep- tual work on a fifth scenario, on its outline for a just society:
Scenario V
Emancipatory transformation to be outlined in the following sections.
THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE CONTENTS
At first glance, the concept emancipatory transformation may appear to be nothing more than a clumsy paraphrase for a just society of solidarity, or for democratic socialism. And in- deed, the desired contents of this Second Great Transformation could be described in these or similar terms. But it makes considerable sense to understand a just society, or democratic so- cialism, as a process of transformation, as op- posed to possibly seeing it merely as a se- quence of reforms in the social-democratic tra- dition, or as a result of a revolution, as in the communist version.
First,
a second great transformation would encom- pass a revolutionary change of societal condi- tions between people, and between their classes and social groups: a society of individual freedom in which all could participate in the conditions of a self-determined life in social security and solidarity that is the basic idea of democratic socialism. That is the guiding con- cept not only for the future society, but for the transformational process, which will start in the midst of bourgeois society, and will lead beyond it. Individual freedom precisely this term means the ubiquitous desire of the individual to determine his or her own life. In the western world, there is hardly a more widespread desire than that to lead ones own life. Anyone today who travels around in France, Finland, Poland, Switzerland, Britain, Germany, Hungary, the USA or Canada, and asks what really moves people, for what they strive, for what they struggle, what they would not put up with hav- ing taken away from them, the answer could be money, a job, power, love, God, etc., but in- creasingly, too, it is the promise of ones own life: With only slight exaggeration, one could say: the daily struggle for ones own life has become the collective experience of the west- ern world. (Beck, 1997: 9). Socially equal access to all goods and con- ditions of life which constitute the prerequisite for such freedom precisely this corresponds to the concepts of justice of large parts of the population, but is impossible due to the profit dominated mechanism of the market. Meaning- ful work for a living wage, education and cul- ture, high-quality health care and social security systems, democratic participation in social deci- sions and environmental justice in a peaceful world these are the conditions for the free development of personality. Socially equal ac- cess to these basic goods for all is the basis of individual freedom. These goods can therefore be called freedom goods. And always, such justice in all instances, also means gender jus- tice. Solidarity is the condition for the struggle for social equality; it is the prerequisite for global cooperation as a central idea for the solu- tion to the problems of humankind in the twenty-first century (Bahr, 2008: 264). Yet the neo-liberal unchaining of worldwide market competition, and the fight for survival of all against all, stands in sharp contrast to this. Worldwide peace is the dream of human- kind. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in many other countries, it is daily fading away, yet it remains the most elementary condition of life.
Secondly,
sustainability through socio-ecological recon- struction is part of the substance of the upcom-
7 ing alternative transformation, i.e. a revolution in the relationship between society and nature. This is the second great basic process of a fu- ture transformation, together with a revolution of justice in the relations between people. More exactly, the change of the societal means of production and of life must be so carried out in such a way that it includes a transition to a new kind of behaviour of society towards nature. In future, societal conditions must always be un- derstood as societal-natural conditions. This will require a fundamental expansion of the lefts programmatic structure, and a new centrality of environmental policy as a central axis of left politics. This also applies to leftist parties. In this area which involves survival, the German LEFT PARTY has yet to take up the strong challenge of the Greens within the Ger- man party spectrum. However, it does have a strategic and conceptual opportunity to do so. The Greens see the Green New Deal, which is their goal, as green capitalism. The market and the profit mechanism are to bring about sus- tainable development and create jobs oriented towards green technologies. The opportunity for the LEFT party is, unlike the Greens, to push for the changes in the conditions of property, control and distribution which will be necessary for socio-ecological reconstruction, to question the dominance of profit, and to avoid an overes- timation of market-compatible instruments such as the total pricing and certification of nature, while certainly applying market instruments for politically set, democratically developed goals and standards, in structural policy, and with stipulations and bans, and to consistently work for social justice as the condition for ecological structural change. Green democratic socialism is a true alternative, to be imagined as a social and at the same time an ecological process of transformation. A central problem of a socio-ecological transformation, which cannot be treated here in any detail, since it is beyond the scope of this paper and also because it has not been ad- dressed sufficiently to date, is the necessary abandonment of the hitherto prevailing growth model in the industrialised countries, and the transition to sustainable development (Binswanger, 2006; Bischoff et al., 2006; Falk- inger, 1986; Reuter, 2000; Zinn, 2002; Zinn, 2008). Prevailing politics, which corresponds to the logic of capital, but also the concept of green capitalism, depend on a renewal of growth as a decisive means for solving prob- lems. The left, especially the trade unions, have throughout their history always seen economic growth as the best possible condition for the struggle for the redistribution of wealth in their favour. State socialism was to defeat capitalism through higher growth. But growth, which in its capitalist guise has produced a level of wealth never before known, has become an existential threat of our natural conditions of life. Growth is destroying the biosphere. By 2050, the consumption of fossil energy re- sources and other important raw materials will have to be reduced at least to 20 per cent of the level of 1990. Even given annual zero growth, this would require a fivefold increase in the pro- ductivity or efficiency of materials. At one per cent economic growth, such an increase would require an eightfold rise in material productivity, a two per cent growth level, a thirteen-fold in- crease, a 2.5 per cent level, a seventeen-fold increase, and the three per cent growth rate which McKinsey has set as the target for Ger- many, a twenty-two-percent increase. If, in view of climate change proceeding at a faster pace than had been assumed until recently, a reduc- tion in the consumption of fossil energy re- sources and other basic resources to 10 per cent in the industrial countries were to become indispensable, a thirty-four-fold increase in ma- terial efficiency by 2050 would be needed (Witt 1998; Rosa Luxemburg Foundation [ed.] 2000: 124). This however seems impossible, despite all innovations in environmental engineering. Growth eats up the relief provided by improve- ments in resource efficiency, unless the rate of increase in efficiency is considerably higher than the rate of economic growth the so- called rebound effect. But improvement in ma- terial productivity is not endlessly possible, nor at any speed. There is an absolute limit to the decoupling of economic growth from resource consumption. Therefore, the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy con-
8 cludes: A society which wants to become fu- ture-capable will have to address the possibility that it will itself, and certainly its future genera- tions, have to get by with less economic growth and ultimately with none at all. (Wuppertal Institute, 2008: p. 112). An important aspect of the crossroads situation at the beginning of the twenty-first century is that of paths leading to destruction of the biosphere by adherence to economic growth, or to sustainable develop- ment in the industrial countries without eco- nomic growth. No less important than an enormous push for the development of efficiency technologies will be a transition to sustainable development, which will require a drastic change in our ways of life. The material consumption of the better- off strata will drop quantitatively in favour of higher quality of life for all through more and better education and culture, reduction in work- ing hours and sensible use of leisure time, and human relations based on solidarity. Material restrictions for the majority of the population can be kept in limits by redistribution at the expense of the rich and the super-rich, provided this can be achieved in the intense distribution struggles to be expected. Given a continuation of the present weakness of the wage-earning strata, the present tendencies toward growth stagnation will, to a great de- gree, be at their expense. The depth of the cuts for consumers can also again, provided the appropriate struggles are waged be greatly limited by ensuring that losses in wealth and forms of economic growth which for most people presently mean loss of prosperity, can be overcome. These include heavy losses in already created wealth through wars, environmental destruction and diseases, but also the fact that wealth is produced and moved in forms which for most people mean a deduction from what they really need, such as investments of billions in financial products and advertising, arms production, the turnover of hundreds of billions in the area of organised professional crime, petty crime and corruption, and losses due to the normal course of things in our throw-away society (Klein, 2006). A future sustainable society of solidarity in the industrial countries will open up environ- mental space for the emerging and developing countries on a new development path beyond the growth society, and thus at the same time provide them with an alternative so as not to have to follow in the footsteps of the West, at least not to the bitter end. This transition from traditional growth to sustainable development will mean very deep cuts in the way of life of each of us, it will mean breaks with values and everyday life patterns which have been internalised for centuries, it will demand cultural breaks, and time which is actually no longer available. This transition will lend democratic socialism a character which the mothers and fathers of socialist visions could not yet suspect, and which must first be dis- covered. The profit and market mechanisms cannot produce any unity of freedom and equality. They produce the opposite of solidarity, de- stroying the natural conditions for the reproduc- tion of society. The failure of the market will therefore have to be answered by a central posi- tioning of the public sphere in a Second Great Transformation. Only thus can the millennial tasks of the twenty-first century become solv- able: the overcoming of wars, hunger and mis- ery in the world, of illiteracy and status-based education, of deficiency diseases, and of unjust access to environmental space and societal decision-making. This means:
Third:
In the transformation to a future-oriented soci- ety, the public sphere - public goods, public support of livelihood, public ownership, public and publicly funded employment, public spaces and participation in the public decision-making process will become the conditio sine qua non for individual freedom. It will become the me- dium of solidarity, because it will be able to pro- vide fair access to the elementary conditions of life, and to such freedom goods as education, health and mobility. The public sphere will be- come the support of the individual against a future of uncertainty and exclusion. Ultimately, the public sphere includes the protection of
9 global public goods: the stability of the bio- sphere and particularly climate stability, of peace and of human security against poverty, hunger, and treatable disease. The left project of a transformation to a just society therefore requires the recovery, strengthening and formation of the public sphere as a bracket between the individuals in society, between the I and the We. Whoever wants individual self-determination, must want the expansion and formation of the public sphere. The neo-liberal project is the individuali- sation of everyone against everyone. The pro- ject of the left is the individuality of everyone through participation in the public sphere by all. The politics of privatisation, supported by all Bundestag parties other than the LEFT PARTY, excludes a central position for the public sphere in their programmatic and political practice. Both the first-rate significance of the provi- sion of freedom goods for all, and especially the urgent expansion of public livelihood support indicate that emancipatory alternatives involve profound socio-ecological structural upheavals in society: for example, changes in relative shares of general provisions for reproduction, such as education, health, child care, care for the elderly and the health-impaired, culture, social security systems, and mobility and, in individual consumption, between the produc- tion sector and the service sector; a radical shift away from fossil fuels to solar power; arma- ments conversion; a transition to ecologically compatible ways of life; and a restructuring of the relationship between domestic and export markets, and between domestic consumption and solidarity support for developing countries. Therefore, the plan of the LEFT PARTY, put for- ward in their Bundestag election platform for 2009, to implement a public investment pro- gramme of 100 billion annually as a financial foundation for societal structural policy, and a 100 million future fund for socio-ecological projects, would be an important instrument for public regulation, in place of market radicalism.
Fourth:
The intellectual-political work of the left for an emancipatory transformation process has its point of reference not in the mere intellectual design of a Brave New World. To be a leftist means being there when projects for a better life are being built. That means working to mo- bilise alternative actors by participating oneself in their commitment, and networking them into movements, alliances and coalitions powerful enough to effect change in the struggle for a better future. Invocations of a better world alone will not suffice. Certainly, the effective presentation in the media of pictures of a just society of solidarity can contribute to changing peoples thinking and their behaviour. If how- ever such pictures suggest, as the Global Sce- nario Group, close to the Stockholm Environ- ment Institute, has done in their study Great Transition (Global Scenario Group, 2003: 14), that the necessary change is already in full swing and that those but recently responsible for the crises are already busy mutating into earth-rescuers, they then also contain tenden- cies which serve to block the necessary trans- formation processes. An intermediate summing up of the con- tents of a Second Great Transformation can be formulated as follows: The substance of the First Great Transformation described by Karl Polanyi was the transition from feudalism to the capitalist commodity society, and the full devel- opment of bourgeois capitalist societies. The substance of a Second Great Transformation will be the transition to a society which over- comes the basic structural deficits of capitalism, and is therefore oriented towards justice, soli- darity and sustainability. Here, such a society has been called democratic socialism. It is described as a composite of:
freedom through equality and solidarity socio-ecological reconstruction defence and expansion of the public sphere mobilisation of protagonists for a just soci- ety.
10 At the end of the seventies, Jean Franois Lyotard had proclaimed the end of the great stories as a feature of postmodernism. That, however, did not prevent neo-liberalism from continuing its story of the solution to the worlds problems through the unleashing of markets. Today, leftist alternatives are cropping up with a many-voiced concert of points of view and approaches. The challenge to the socialist left is to pick up its own great story of socialism, which was thoroughly discredited by the reality of state socialism, and continue it as the story of a democratic and libertarian socialism rebuilt from the ground up, in such a way that links to other progressive stories and alliances and those who embody them, can be established. This is all the more urgent inasmuch as it is not at all certain that the neo-liberal story will not survive the present crisis. However, it is cer- tainly possible many say probable that it will lose its hegemonic position as an ideology. The story of the left answers the simple question: What do people need so as to be able to live in a self-determined manner? (The LEFT/PDS, 2005: ff.). This question determines the consistent theme running through the pro- grammatic structure of the left. This question could become a permanent fixture in the public appearance of the left along with the answers to it. Democratic socialism provided it is able, as it has yet to demonstrate, to actually convey the multilayered emancipatory content of this concept! certainly has what it takes to con- ceptually formulate a conclusive societal alter- native to capitalism and to become the content of a Second Great Transformation.
THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION: A PROCESS
The different society of the future has in the history of the left been foreseen either as a process of growing into the new society by way of reforms, as one of the moralisation and the humanisation of capitalism, or as the result of a great act of revolution. An understanding of democratic socialism as a transformative proc- ess means the Aufhebung of both approaches into a left theory of transformation and its reali- sation in a practice a dialectical intertwining of reformist and revolutionary changes. Generations of social-democratic reformers have worked on the theoretical foundations of paths to reform. They have viewed bourgeois capitalist societies as basically formable in a democratic and social direction to an unlimited degree. They were able, by means of reforms, to win political liberties, considerable improve- ments for wage workers and welfare-state se- curity systems, without calling the dominance of profit or the underlying issues of the owner- ship of property into question. But they have not been able to prevent the polarisation be- tween rich and poor, the exploitation of large parts of the earths population, devastating cri- ses, wars, or the acute endangerment of the biosphere. Generations of communists oriented them- selves towards a revolution theory in which they viewed western societies as reduced to their basic capitalist structure. Their potential for evo- lution was denied under communist orthodoxy, and greater improvements expected only be- yond the Rubicon of revolution. In the west, this led them into isolation. The communist revolu- tions of the twentieth century replaced capitalist oppression with monopolistic party structures, brought greater social equality, broad popular education and progress in gender equality, but radically limited individual freedom, destroyed the environment even more than capitalism was doing, and, with their centralist economic regu- lation, so restricted innovation that state social- ism in Europe ultimately failed economically, too. In the history of the left, reformists and revolutionaries have always fought each other and have thus weakened the left. They saw re- form and revolution as mutually antagonistic, and generally saw them as devoid of any link- age. A left theory of transformation will leave such antinomic thinking behind it.
First,
it is characteristic of emancipatory transforma- tion processes that they can combine reforms
11 with upheavals of revolutionary depth. The strength of reformism is that it makes change possible via a long series of many practicable partial reforms. It is the weakness of reformism that it shrinks back before changing capitalisms basic structures, or its conditions of property and power. The attainable change therefore remains limited, due to the fact that the domi- nance of profit has hardly been challenged. The strength of revolutionary concepts is that they aim at the transgression of the boundaries of capitalism, and consistently press for the necessary changes. Their weakness is that they place little value on the reforms possi- ble within bourgeois capitalist societies, and see them as at best instruments for leading the masses toward the hoped-for revolution. A left theory of transformation is able to overcome the weaknesses of both concepts of societal renewal, and to incorporate their strengths in itself. Reform and revolution do not exclude each other categorically. Revolutionary change can come about in the form of sudden breaks, but even in such cases, it at the same time includes a wide variety of reform steps, in which only some of the changes are deep breaks. Reforms, the totality of which under the preconditions of continual changes in the rela- tionship of forces in favour of more far-reaching demands, ultimately amounts at the bottom line to profound revolutionary change, are not the total counter-pole to such change. A just, sustainable, peaceful society based on solidarity, which can be described as democ- ratic socialism, is not only to be expected as a future societal structure in the great beyond of present conditions, but must rather also be seen as a goal and also as a development, the ele- ments of which can already take shape today, and which can already be of orienting signifi- cance for present alternative action.
Second:
Thus can democratic socialism become a mat- ter of this world, for all those who expect of left politics improvements in their present working and daily lives today, not some day, and long before capitalism calls it quits. At the same time however, transformation means opening up presently practicable reforms to steps leading beyond capitalism. Transformation means in- corporating hope and a vision into what is fea- sible today. It overcomes the self-restraint to the next steps, without dissolving them in illusions. A transformation strategy can prove to be more capable of mobilisation than single ideas for reform which offer no perspective, or than a utopia which fails to change the here-and-now.
Thirdly,
a transformation process opens up the oppor- tunity of being better able to overcome deep- rooted delimitations of different leftists against each other. The concentration of one group, the revolutionists upon protest and resistance to the existing system and propagation of a future socialist order, and of the other, the pragma- tists, on presently practicable partial steps, can become conceivable as different contributions to a uniform overall process, between the ex- ponents of which bridges can be built, because what is at issue is the contradictory moments of one and the same process. The potentials for change of extra-parliamentary struggles, par- liamentary work and work in government gain greater strength through the conscious linkage to an emancipatory transformation process than through a delimitation of their protagonists and strategies from one another. Viewed reformisti- cally or revolutionistically, reforms within capi- talism and upheavals which go beyond it ap- pear insulated against one another. Viewed transformationally, on the other hand, and acted upon accordingly, both developments can be shaped as a uniform process with many transi- tions.
Fourthly,
the attitude opens up the possibility of broad alliances in a presumably long process of trans- formation. In periods in which a completely different society cannot in any case be the task as yet, alliances for partial goals can be con- cluded in which radical protagonists cooperate with moderate forces whose goal is nothing
12 more than a better capitalism. In such phases, even alliances of the majority with strategically thinking factions of the power elites are possi- ble in order to prevent global dangers to hu- mankind, even if the latter see the possible par- tial steps towards social or ecological change primarily as an opportunity to safeguard their power.
THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION: ALLIANCES AND DEMOCRACY
The alliances which the grass roots of an eman- cipatory transformation process can build are determined by its contents and its character. The reforms in the phase of welfare-state regu- lated capitalism, which Ralf Dahrendorf de- scribed as the age of social democracy, were supported by a middle-top alliance. The classic social-democratic reforms were implemented by governments from the top down whether recruited from the social-democratic parties, from President Roosevelts Democratic Party in the USA, or in some countries, under the pres- sure of circumstances, even from conservative parties together with the broad middle strata of society, particularly male skilled worker and their trade unions. Women, predominantly de- pendent on the male family breadwinner, were generally assigned a rather passive role. The lower strata were rather pacified by social secu- rity systems, more than being active allies. This social base of social-democratic reform politics explains both its considerable successes over the course of several decades, and also its limi- tations. Future transformation processes will have a different social base. Their opportunity is a mid- dle-bottom alliance based on democracy and solidarity. Michael Brie has, based on the study by Rita Mller-Hilmer for the Social-Democratic Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Gesellschaft im Re- formprozess [Society in a process of reform] (Mller Hilmer, 2006), and on Gero Neuge- bauers work Politische Milieus in Deutschland [political identity groups in Germany] (Neuge- bauer, 2007), determined that of the political identity groups investigated there, which were compiled to six for the sake of simplicity, at least three large groupings could enter into an alliance of interest groups for a transformation to a sustainable society of solidarity: the social- libertarian middle class, the threatened core staff in corporations, and the sub-proletarian groups, or the modern precariat (Brie, 2007: 13 -45; Institute for Social Analysis 2/2009: 10 ff). The possibility for a broad historical block uniting these political identity groups and other forces emerges from the fact that the desirable characteristics of a just society of solidarity as outlined in Section 3, as the contents of an emancipatory transformation, correspond to the interests of thoroughly different social groups of the majority of the population. But this will merely be a possibility, as long as the left is not able to present its transformational ideas as an attractive societal project for the entire spec- trum of potential actors, which provides solu- tions for the urgent problems of the present and at the same time longer-term perspectives for liveable lives. But even if this were to succeed and many initiatives for such a project do al- ready exist this would not yet suffice to win majorities for the decision to actively support such a transformation project. Two things would be necessary in addition: that the left and other democratic exponents of a society of soli- darity at least potentially recognise the power to actually succeed in implementing such a pro- ject, and that they be seen as possessing the expertise and the skills needed to carry it out. At present, neither applies to the left in Germany, or in Europe. The left in Europe is at present not an actor capable of hegemony, unlike the situa- tion in a number of Latin American countries. Work on building a broad middle-bottom al- liance is thus a central task for all left forces, so as to enable the entry into a Second Great Transformation. This will require:
A long (or ever?) unknown willingness for cooperation and communication not only between these tendencies (within the left, D.K.), but also between everything in which they differentiate themselves: spaces and options for action, modes of reflection, strategies to be played out nationally and in- ternationally, strategic alliances, political
13 concepts and possible alternative projects. (Seibert, 2009: 7). Considerable strengthening of the skills of alternative actors in a wide variety of politi- cal areas, their application in concrete pro- jects for the solution of burning questions in the interest of the lower strata and the mid- dle of society, and thus to shift everyday practices leftwards (Brand, 2009: 43). Providing the concrete struggles with a common direction, determined by an attrac- tive left societal project as an alternative to capitalism. For: we must be able to imag- ine an alternative, if we want to change any- thing (Cecea, 2009: 20).
A democratic renewal will succeed in a second great transformation only as a process carried of the majority, or not at all.
THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE TIME WINDOW PROBLEM
A future transformation which already initiates a change towards solidarity under the given con- ditions of bourgeois capitalism, but which, ac- cording to the expectations of large portions of the left, is to lead to overcoming the dominance of profit in society, contains a deep contradic- tion. Such a transformation will presumably be a long process of searching and learning, in the course of continual struggles of contending classes and social groups. But in contradiction to this long-term horizon, very far-reaching steps for the prevention of a climate catastro- phe, of other environmental hazards, and of the death of many millions of people from hunger, deficiency diseases, destruction of the environ- ment and wars in the poor countries, are of the utmost urgency. According to the conviction of a large majority of climatologists, humankind has only a short time window of a decade or a decade and a half to just barely ward off the tipping of climate change into a climate catas- trophe with far-reaching changes albeit even so with very severe damage. The power of the present rulers will not be broken during this period, nor will the profit system which is de- stroying the environment be overcome. Is it conceivable that a change in the rela- tionship between society and nature, which could save the stability of the climate, and which is not possible without considerable change in the conditions within society itself, could, as an the essential part of a coming transformation, proceed more rapidly than the presumable emergence of a democratic, social- ist society? Will it be possible, in the fight against the destructive policy of the rulers, to force policy changes and compromises from farsighted and responsible parts of the power elites that could lead to such solutions to hu- mankinds problems as a solar energy revolu- tion and a policy climate turnaround, or the abo- lition of all nuclear weapons? Not a few leftists reject the idea of such cross-class survival pacts as unrealistic. As Susan George wrote: A further illusion is to assume that corporations and rich countries will at least change their behaviour when they see they are demolishing the life of the planet on which we all have to live. This is perhaps the most pernicious of all fallacies because it would seem so clearly in the interests of everyone, including elites, to preserve our ecological base. Personally, I don't think they can stop even if they want to, even for their own children. Capi- talism is like that famous bicycle that has to keep moving forward or topple over and cor- porations are all competing to see who can pedal fastest, straight into the brick wall. 2 But the question is, whether this may not be an overly economistic view, whether the political relationship of forces cannot be considerably modified by change in the mode of action and the intensity of effect of economic laws, and by a change of cultural views and of the legal framework. Like Susan George, Neil Smith (Smith, 2008), Paul Burkett (Burkett, 2006), Victor Wal- lis (Wallis, 2008), Tadzio Mller and Stefan Kaufmann (Mller/Kaufmann, 2009), Harald Welzer (Welzer, 2008) and Elmar Altvater (Alt- vater, 2009) similarly exclude the opening of the
14 gate to ecological sustainability by a turn to green capitalism. The moderates have, with their obstinate attempts to elicit an ecological remedy from a system that obsessively tram- ples down everything in its path, lost all sense of realism. (Wallis, 2008: 882). Other leftists who embed the indispensable criticism of the concept of green capitalism in a transforma- tional-theoretical approach, contradict such exclusively antagonistic thinking (Wolf, 2009, 2009; Klein, 2009). There are many good rea- sons not to see green capitalism as the solution to the environmental crisis. But this is only half the truth. For according to all historical experi- ence, the mobile boundaries of capitalism al- ways include considerable potentials for adapta- tion and play within them. The possibility that partial successes could result in the ecologisa- tion of the economy and society, even under conditions of capitalism, cannot be ruled out. The left should use this space of possibility to enter upon a socio-ecological reconstruction of society. Instead of assuming the role of objec- tors by denying capitalism any potential for stronger environmental orientation, it should recognise the differences within the ruling block and put on public pressure for the fulfilment of many promises made by the rulers for sustain- able development. Socio-ecological reconstruc- tion should, for the left, constitute a key aspect of a Second Great Transformation. A Green New Deal certainly could be initi- ated in the context of tension between a green capitalism supported primarily by sections of the power elites conscious of the looming dan- gers, and the contradictions and limits just indi- cated. It could, in the context of changes in the societal relation of forces, increasingly lead in a socio-ecological reconstruction, which, under pressure from the forces of counter-power, would be carried out on the basis of democracy and solidarity. The Green New Deal itself would have to be understood as a process, the social content and environmentally effective scope of which would be changing. Are there historical parallels which argue for the possibility of cross-class alliances in ques- tions of human survival, or for strategic political action of parts of the power elites themselves against basic tendencies of the profit mecha- nism? The development of the New Deal in the USA during the thirties can only in part be seen as a parallel. It was not about a global problem of humankind, it was about maintaining the capitalist system after the deep shock of the world economic crisis of 1929-32; it was about a practical reaction, carried out from above, to the failure of the ruling class of America (Carl- son/Unger, 1992: 34, 29 ff.), implemented by the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal was not a strategy planned from the start. It was forced by a deep systemic crisis, by a delegitimisation of big business, and by the electoral defeat of the Republicans, who had ruled up to that time. It arose out of a move- ment for the self-organisation of the workers, influenced by the upswing of social reformist ideas and strongly characterised by left-liberal, previously largely disinterested intellectuals and artists. A section of the ruling class saw itself forced against its will and against the bitter resistance of the conservative majority of the power elite to gradually implement a package of reforms which ultimately ended up as a For- distic distribution compromise. But this devel- opment was only consolidated when, in view of the rise of Hitlers fascism and of the looming World War, massive armaments programmes led the economy out of the continuing depres- sion. Yet we can ascertain: there was a crisis which threatened the power structure, public consciousness was moving to the left, there was pressure from of the masses who were profoundly insecure, and intellectuals were in- volved in a democratic movement, all of which was able to move a minority of the power elite, in the teeth of opposition from the majority of the ruling class, to implement the greatest break in American history, in terms of the politi- cal role of the state and its social responsibility. The fact that after the Second World War, the experiences of the New Deal and the wel- fare-state path of Scandinavian countries for decades fed into the structure of welfare-state regulated capitalism on the OECD scale was due to the historically special growth condi-
15 tions, and also to outside pressure in the East- West conflict of systems. Today, most of these concrete, historical conditions of the New Deal are not present. The ruling class did not by any means, in the man- agement of the present crisis, fail as sensation- ally as it did in 1929-32 (Van der Pijl, 2009: 29 ff). It has been able to prevent a collapse of em- ployment such as occurred during the Depres- sion, as well as a total collapse of the financial system and the flight into protectionism. The recent crisis has not been heightened to the point of a political power crisis. Unlike the crisis of 1929-32, the trade unions have not gained in fighting strength; rather, they have been weak- ened. At present, it is not the democrats or the social democrats in Europe, but the conserva- tives who are on the rise. But they have learned, as the coalition of the conservative CDU/CSU and the liberal FDP in Germany shows, to chan- nel the pressure from below by means of mod- erate socio-political concessions. Roosevelts New Deal only worked because it was sup- ported by drastic institutional change: the states power to intervene in the market was strengthened to a far higher degree than is the case today, especially once the war economy was instituted. The trade unions were broadly included in administrative regulatory institutions at that time. At present, no such conditions prevail. Unlike during the post-war period, we have today no particularly favourable growth conditions, and certainly no pressure from any powerful counter-force, such as the Soviet Un- ion was at that time. But it is not the strength of the conservative forces, but primarily the weakness of the left that is characteristic of the situation in Europe today. This can change. In the USA, the an- nounced programme of Barack Obama is cer- tainly reminiscent of the project of the New Deal without being able to be based on a mili- tant working class, however. Although the im- plosion of state socialism has freed the western power elites from outside pressure to act, it has also deprived them of the glue of internal cohe- sion with reference to an external threat. The economic space to be able to meet full-blown challenges is substantially greater today than it was during the crisis of 1929-32. The differ- ences relative to the era of Roosevelts New Deal are thus ambivalent, and need not argue conclusively against the ability of the power elites today to learn lessons, compared with what pertained at that time. An additional experience regarding the abil- ity of sections of the power elites to learn under shock is shown by their behaviour during the Second World War, and during the phase of new thinking, arms control and disarmament towards the end of the Cold War. The military expansion of Germany and the threat to bour- geois civilisation posed by fascism led to an alliance of the western powers with the hated Soviet Union. Their long delay in opening a sec- ond front in the West against Hitlers Germany reflects the reluctance of powerful sections of the ruling elite with regard to that alliance. Eric Hobsbawm wrote about this coalition which bridged classes and ideologies: And, as it turned out, the crucial lines in this [international D.K.] civil war were not drawn between capi- talism as such and communist social revolution, but between ideological families: on the one hand the descendants of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment and the great revolutions includ- ing, obviously, the Russian Revolution; on the other, its opponents. In short, the frontier ran not between capitalism and communism, but between what the nineteenth century would have called progress and reaction only that these terms were no longer quite appo- site. (Hobsbawm, 1994: The Age of Extremes, p. 144.) During the war, the USA very rapidly un- der state control and with the cooperation of the trade unions accomplished the conversion of large parts of the civilian economy to arms production. In the context of the Manhattan Project for the production of the American atomic bomb, the work of more than a hundred thousand people in hundreds of scientific facili- ties and production centres was coordinated across all boundaries of competition. Lester R. Brown concluded: This mobilisation of re- sources within a matter of months demon- strates that a country and, indeed, the world can restructure the economy quickly if con-
16 vinced of the need to do so. (Brown, 2008: 280). When after the Second World War the mili- tary and particularly the nuclear potentials of the opponents in the Cold War did ensure a balance of terror, but at the same time threatened the existence of large portions of humankind and thus also endangered the power the rulers of the world, the long-term survival interests, too, of parts of the ruling class finally won out over aggressiveness of the hawks and the interests of the military-industrial complex. It proved pos- sible to implement the concept of mutual secu- rity in arms control treaties and disarmament agreements. We can thus ascertain: If the power of the elites and of human civilisation are threatened, realistic sectors of these elites are capable of far-reaching political redirection of the economy and also of making arrangements even with their most terrible opponents if only the profit system can thus be upheld. For the strategy of the left, including the LEFT PARTY, this is of very great significance. There is a considerable difference between hav- ing on the one hand to assume that warding off the climate catastrophe, accelerated species extinction or other environmental crises can be successful only in a post-capitalist society i.e., after major catastrophes or on the other, that a considerable change in the societal relation- ship of forces, a transition from the neo-liberal developmental stage of capitalism to a post- neo-liberal phase of green capitalism can be implemented. In the second case, the chances are greater for initiating the necessary socio- ecological reorganisation, because progress can also be supported by sections of the power elite. A comparison of the threat also to the western power elites from the fascist war of aggression and later from the threat of nuclear war, with the danger posed by a climate catas- trophe, the results of decimated biodiversity and continued poverty in large regions of the world, would however have to take a consider- able difference into account: The dangers today are more a creeping threat, not so much an immediate and visible one, as they were at that time. They are much easier to repress. At least the environmental threats are not the work of hostile powers; rather, they operate more or less invisibly. This makes a learning process in the power elites under shock, as in 1929-32, in the Second World War, or under the impact of a strategic nuclear balance of terror more im- probable. However, the great dangers of the twenty-first century are actually greater than those of the twentieth century, even for the rulers. Moreover, climate change will increase in seriousness very rapidly. The costs of the necessary reactions to it will be all the higher the longer climate policy change fails to be im- plemented. The disruption of the ecological balance will be a particularly heavy burden upon the people in the poor countries of the world, and could lead to very intense reactions. The oil price increases to be expected also hit them particularly hard. That could enhance state fail- ure in large regions of the world and give inter- national terrorism new impetus. In any case, the interweaving of various processes of crisis and instability will continue. The possible modified reproduction of neo-liberal capitalism and a renewed financial crisis could lead to a shock situation, even for the ruling elites. In view of a renaissance of a bourgeois hu- manist sense of responsibility as outlined above, the possibility within the context of an only very brief historical time window, of press- ing mobile factions of the power elites to take decisive steps to stabilise the climate and re- duce other major threats cannot be ruled out. However, the present relation of forces gives cause for justifiable doubt about it. If however responsible circles in the ruling class can win out, such a development could be seen by the LEFT PARTY as part of a transfor- mational process, and create an Aufhebung, to the extent possible within capitalism, towards a further-reaching perspective of new societal relations with nature. Thus, a Green New Deal would be a process of socio-ecological recon- struction which would start in the post-neo- liberal phase of a partially greened capitalism, and would be continued more perfectly in a post-capitalist development constituting a central characteristic of emancipatory alterna-
17 tives, or of democratic socialism. For a consid- erable time, however, the success of such a process would depend on a combination of powerful pressure from below and ecological change from above. Due to the profit mecha- nism, it must be expected that a green capital- ism, inasmuch as it would be pushed by parts of the power elites, would be implemented very much at the expense of the waged strata, the underprivileged and the majority in the worlds non-competitive countries, and would moreover be oriented towards a growth which would threaten to eat up ecological advances again. Precisely for that reason, a block of democratic socio-ecological counter-forces working to drive the development beyond green capitalism will be needed. In this contradiction-filled sense, a capital- ism potentially capable albeit to a limited de- gree of a green reconstruction can be ex- pected, as a historical parallel to the capitalism of the 1980s, which was capable of mutual se- curity, arms control and disarmament. The con- ditions for that are that the struggle of counter- forces for democratic socio-ecological change, development and peace, while not powerful enough to force an end to capitalism in the foreseeable future, will be strong enough to make use of clashes of interests and elements of ecological reason in the power elites, and to force them to implement urgent changes in environmental, energy and climate policy. Suc- cess is possible if the pressure of the dangers is great enough to force both sides to change their behaviour, and if the conflicts within the ruling block are decided in favour of the more flexible forces, which are more open to global responsibility. The LEFT PARTY must draw conclusions from such strategic considerations in its pro- grammatic structure and its politics, which fit into a transformation strategy. That must in- clude politics for building a middle-bottom alli- ance which, in global questions affecting hu- mankind, can go as far as joint action, albeit fraught with contradictions, with parts of the power elites.
THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONCRETE POLITICS
Considerations of transformation theory are not merely of programmatic significance. However, they have generally not even been dealt with in the programmes of leftist parties. The pro- grammatic approaches of the European Left Party are amongst the exceptions. However, the transformation strategy also has significance for strategic and practical political action, beyond the programmatic structure of the left. Exam- ples include:
Implications for the positioning of the left in the debate over CO2 emissions certificates in climate policy, and with regard to such issues as the current Desertec project; left structural policy with regard to electric cars; left conclusions for the consolidation of the financial system. Let us discuss these points briefly.
CO2 emissions certificates:
In the debate over CO2 emissions certificates, the difference between the reform of capitalism and reforms as an element of transformational processes becomes very clearly visible. For those sections of the power elites sensitised to environmental issues, the introduction of emis- sions trading with CO2 certificates is the market- compatible main path towards reduction of car- bon dioxide pollution and increased global warming, since it leads to energy price in- creases and hence to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Left critics reject the use of this instrument because artificially designed rights to pollute the environment expand precisely the same market mechanism which has led us into the environmental disaster in the first place (Alt- vater/ Brunnengrber, 2008: 10 pp.). However, their legitimate criticism would no longer be correct if emissions trading could be turned into an instrument of the socio-ecological transfor- mation process. This would mean that in the context of cap and trade capping total per- missible emissions while trading emissions cer-
18 tificates absolute priority would have to be assigned to tough goals for mandatory reduc- tion of emissions through international treaties and national regulations. The primary allocation of emissions rights should be based on the principle of the equal rights of all the earths inhabitants to environmental space. This would force the rich countries to purchase rights from the developing countries, and provide the latter with considerable funds for investment in cli- mate protection. Moreover, the allocation should be accomplished by the auction of emis- sions rights, instead of free, as has been the case in the European Union to date. Moreover, financial compensation for the expected price increases should be guaranteed for the under- privileged segments of the population. Under such conditions, even the market instruments of a Green New Deal, in combination with regu- latory, rather than market-compatible instru- ments, and active preferential treatment for renewable energies, could be harnessed for a socio-ecological transformation. More important for alternative climate policy, however, than the use of market elements would be the political limitation of the supply of fossil fuel sources, which should be left in the ground; environ- mental stipulations and bans and the support for a decentralised energy industry; an energy saving lifestyle; and the societal control or so- cialisation of companies if their profit interests block sustainable climate policy. However, politics in the context of a trans- formation project would require not only that partial social and ecological reforms within the context of capitalism be exhaustively used and opened up for further-reaching changes, but also that projects be resisted which set the course in a wrong direction and obstruct a sus- tainable future. A prime example of this is the Desertec project; another, the lopsided hopes being placed in electric cars as an environ- mental solution for individual motorised traffic.
The Desertec project:
The Desertec Industrial initiative, a consortium of initially twenty German and international cor- porations, was inaugurated on 13 July 2009, with the goal of building solar power stations in the deserts of North Africa for a probably grossly underestimated capital expenditure of 400 billion, to provide both electric power supplies to Africa and to cover about 15 per cent of European demand for electric power. Members of the consortium include the Deut- sche Bank, which is to find and bring together investors to fund the project; Munich Re; the power companies RWE and Eon; Siemens and Schott Solar; MAN Solar Millennium; the Swiss technology corporation ABB; the Spanish com- pany Abengoa Solar; and the largest private corporation in Algeria, the Cevital Group. The project was welcomed emphatically by the me- dia as the greatest private eco-power initiative of all times (Sddeutsche Zeitung, 19 June 2009). Gerhard Knies, chair of the supervisory board of the Desertec Foundation, explained: I would like to express my congratulations to industry, as saving the world may be the great- est ethical task and at the same time the big- gest business deal of the future. (Sddeutsche Zeitung, July 13, 2009). Greenpeace approves of the project, as do Chancellor Angela Merkel and opposition leader Sigmar Gabriel. But such a type of projects is precisely not the point of connection of leftists to corporate strategy and the politics of the rulers. Desertec means building an extreme version of a private power monopoly in a decisive field for the fu- ture. Desertec stands for those contours of green capitalism which point in the wrong di- rection. Energy supply in North Africa would be monopolised, instead of strengthening devel- opment policy by means of a decentralised en- ergy supply system. This power concentration would internationalise and cement monopoly pricing policy in the energy sector. The poten- tials of renewable energies for decentralisation and communalisation, for local jobs, for democ- ratic influence of citizens on their energy supply and local economic structures would be gam- bled away. Moreover, according to estimates by critical energy experts, the project could be- come more expensive than a decentralised mix of various renewable energies. Hermann Scheer, president of Eurosolar and an Alterna- tive Nobel Prize laureate, expects that by the
19 time Desertec is able to deliver power in 2020 at the earliest decentralised solar and wind power in Germany will be cheaper than De- sertec power. He wrote: The corporations are pursuing the goal of prolonging the structures of todays energy supply into the age of renew- able energies. Desertec means power from a single consortium, which would control produc- tion plants and transmission lines alike. (man- ager-magazin.de, 13 July 2009) at a time when even the EU Commission is forcing en- ergy corporations to split up their grids. Desertec is an outstanding example for the fact that the narrowness of the climate and en- ergy policy time window is a challenge to de- link strategic structural decisions from the ex- trapolation of the old destructive structures now, not sometime in the future. Exactly the reverse is being done, however, with this cele- brated desert power project.
The electric car project:
A second example for the reproduction of inap- propriate structures in green guise is being her- alded in the marketing campaign for electric cars. Apart from the fact that they would not be a particularly environmentally friendly solution if the energy they consume were provided by coal and oil-fired plants, they would also change very little in the existing mobility structure. Con- centrating on them distracts from the develop- ment of public transport, reducing overall traffic volumes and shifting it to the rails. Its use as a bare substitute for petrol-run vehicles does not challenge existing urban structures: the con- sumption of public space as a space for the flow, congestion and the paid parking of the ubiquitous auto; the time-consuming separation of home, work and culture; the uncontrolled urban sprawl into the landscape; and the elimi- nation of the shops next door for the benefit of supermarkets in outlying areas. We would be confirming individualistic mobility and lifestyles, while leaving traffic congestion unchanged. Prestige consumerism can also come in an elec- trically powered version. The left should accept the advantages that electric cars provide with moderate individual use, as taxies, rental cars and in car-sharing fleets as a part of an overall ecological plan for modern mobility. But its abuse for the prolongation of individualistic, consumerist lifestyles and societal structures is not an acceptable perspective. A hegemonic block of neo-liberal policy, dream factories, ma- jor corporations, trade unions and waged em- ployees as well as the broad mass of workers has emerged, for whom cars are us seems to be the no-alternative model materially and intellectually, rationally and emotionally, eco- nomically and politically. (Brie, 2009: 169). Again, the challenge now is, within a nar- row time window, to at least set the direction for a type of mobility that will preserve the envi- ronment, as part of a non-consumerist society. The way there can be marked by a public pas- senger transport system that is restful, pleasant and, in future, free of charge, its connection points reachable within a few minutes from the points of departure; by reduced working hours, as compensation, too, for sometimes greater time spent for mobility; by a transition to urban structures based on short routes; by attractive local recreation possibilities; by possibilities for self-realisation in education, culture and sports instead of in high-powered sedans; and by aes- thetically designed public spaces instead of streams of cars. The electric car, too, may have a place in such a picture. The point is that what is now feasible not block the path to the future, but that it be in- serted into a broader transformational process from the point of view of left politics. This can be show, too, by way of left demands for the renewal of the financial system.
Renewing the financial system:
The left has presented a wide variety of con- crete suggestions for overcoming the domi- nance of the financial markets in the economy and society, for far-reaching restrictive meas- ures on the banking system in the area of de- posit banking, for the stable supply of the econ- omy with loans, and for democratic control of the financial markets (Alternative Economic Policy Working Group, 2009; Wahl: 2009). The demands from the left spectrum include imme-
20 diately necessary measures, such as the elimi- nation of especially destabilising practices and instruments. These include a ban on credit se- curitisations, on credit default swaps, on off- market financial futures, and on short selling. They also include initiatives for a repeal of the admittance of hedge funds in Germany, for a ban on operations with foreign hedge funds by German banks, and for the abolition of mis- placed incentives for manager compensation. Other demands are aimed more towards a me- dium-term reform of the financial system, such as the roll-back and strict control of investment banking, stricter regulations for capital-based retirement plans, to keep them away from speculative operations, in the interest of the insured, for strict public supervision of private rating agencies and the establishment of public rating institutes, and for the introduction of transaction taxes on security and exchange transactions, deceleration of the financial mar- kets, and restrictions of speculation (Bundestag- Printed Matter16/7191 / The LEFT PARTY). Thinking in terms of the transformation process however, the present steps towards the stabilisation of the financial system would, ac- cording to the concept of the LEFT PARTY, be planned as entry projects for the transformation of the private monopolistic financial system dominated by short-term profit, to a public fi- nancial system dedicated to emancipatory goals and the socio-ecological reconstruction of soci- ety. This was expressed in the bill introduced by the parliamentary group of the LEFT PARTY in the Bundestag on 29 January 2009: Socialise the big banks (Printed Matter 16/11747; Arenz 2009). For example, state participation in banks not should be constituted as silent partnerships, but should rather be tied to the prerequisite of mandatory public influence not of daily opera- tions, but certainly of the direction of corporate policy. State participations in systemically im- portant financial institutions should not be held only for as short a time as possible and then liquidated again, but should be used as an entry into growing public, democratic influence on the reorganisation of the financial system. Thus, nationalisations would lead to a proc- ess of socialisation: public bank ownership and public influence on control of the property of private banks, public monitoring, stipulations, bans and political policy directives should be combined in such a way that the transformation of the highly speculative financial system ori- ented toward shareholder value, to a banking system with the primary task of providing credit to manufacturing companies and especially to projects of socio-ecological reconstruction could be initiated. A left transformation project would be de- signed so as to be simultaneously social and ecological. In that way, leftists, trade unions and social movements intend to prevent the main burden of the financial crisis and other crises from being passed on to waged employees and underprivileged groups. Demands like that of the LEFT PARTY for a temporary millionaires tax of five per cent on private fortunes of 1 million or more have that in mind. The sugges- tion to impose a temporary special tax on man- agers of private financial institutions of 80 per cent of annual incomes over 600,000 has the same thrust. That would ensure the national budget income which would counteract the temptation to master the escalating national debt by further dismantling social expenditures. IG Metal (the German metal-workers union) has proposed a public equity fund stocked with at least 100 billion, with which the state could buy shares in companies facing bankruptcy, with the goal of securing jobs, if necessary, through ecologically oriented conversion. This fund would be financed by a forced loan of two per cent on private fortunes above 750,000. But at the same time, a determining public influence on the financial system to be restruc- tured is urgent primarily because there must be an assurance that the tax money pumped into the banking system be invested for socio- ecologically sensible economic development, instead of flowing into speculative financial in- vestments once again, or fuelling inflation. An intermediate result: considerations of transformation theory are not an abstract matter for programmatic debates detached from real- ity; rather they have orienting significance for strategies and concrete politics.
21 THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF THE LEFT
An emancipatory transformation process based on a renewal of the democracy will necessarily also includes a renewal of the political culture of the left. Even merely transcending the antago- nistic confrontation between reform and revolu- tion in the discourse of the left will require fun- damentally overcoming the deeply rooted nega- tive culture of mutual accusations, defamatory statements and exclusion. A transformational process of seeking and learning is completely incompatible with resid- ual ideas on the left about being in possession of a monopoly on the truth about the future path and shape of society. Instead, a culture of argument will be necessary, of listening and checking arguments and counter-arguments, of toleration and of learning, too, from those who think differently. In the party-constituted left with a state-socialist history, this will require a complete break with Stalinist structures, such as the SED/PDS undertook at its founding party congress in 1989, when East Germanys ruling SED added democratic socialism to its name and dropped its claim to sole power. The centralistic structure of state socialism, the nar- rowness of the intellectual framework of Marx- ist-Leninism, and the sanctification of the party line suffocated all political culture. We said that it was better to be wrong with the party than to be right outside it and against it. (Semprun, 1981: 82). The end of state socialism was there- fore also a liberation of culture in the broad sense, and particularly of political culture. How- ever, liberation from dogmatic thought struc- tures and an open political culture remain a permanent task. They concern the entire left, and not at all only those parts of it with com- munist or state-socialist origins. An open, communicative and cooperative political culture is also a requirement for com- munication between the very different political identity groups which could implement the emancipatory transformation process. These identity groups are distinguished to a large de- gree by their specific cultural habits, which are characteristic to their members. Again, tolera- tion, considerable empathy, sensitive language and learning of differences will be required to make this community in diversity politically pro- ductive. This is all the more true of the political balancing act needed to keep step, in the strug- gle against the rulers, with the more farsighted and more flexible parts of the power elites who want to fight the climate catastrophe, bring a nuclear-free world closer, and ease poverty. In his book Rage and Time, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk suggests the language of rage as the fundamental communications tool which moves development forward. Without a doubt, such language is appropriate for the purposes of ac- cusation against attitudes and behaviours hos- tile to humanity. However, it is doubtful whether a pure language of rage can, without differentiation, be the language of left political culture. It will hardly be able to reach that ma- jority of citizens, who see opportunities for the design of their own lives in processes of indi- vidualisation, diversity of lifestyles, international division of labour and cultural encounter, pro- gress in gender emancipation, self-responsibility and similar processes. And an exclusively ag- gressive language will certainly build no bridges to those in the halls of power who are willing, against their own some short-term interests, to give the priority to reason in questions of hu- man survival. Briefly, a future emancipatory transforma- tion of society will require a new political culture of the left. People can change society if their concrete interests, their emotions and their in- tellect flow together to form a torrent up up- heaval. Even if that does require collective pro- tagonists, it also involves an inner decision by millions of individuals to take the renewal of society into their own hands. Rudolf Bahro for- mulated it briefly: There will only be as much new direction as there are individuals who take a new direction. (Bahro 1089: 464). Talcott Parsons saw as fundamental social change the result of a fundamental change in values in the cultural sphere of society, and the internalisa- tion of this cultural change by individuals (Par- sons, 1969). According to Gnter Anders, cul- tural changes must cause a politically relevant part of active people to acquire incomparably
22 more depth of feeling and empathy. Only thus might the Promethean gap between their power to transform, reminiscent of the bold energy of Prometheus, and the limitation of human capacity for responsibility for the conse- quences of their behaviour, be closed (Anders, 1985: 266). Douglass North has argued that the enormous difference in processes of change in societies shows that the cultural component, together with changes of institutions, is central, too, for a change in economics and politics over the course of time (North, 2005: IX). In the works quoted, there are repeated ref- erences to drastic changes in the basic socio- cultural situation of societies and individuals under the pressure of extreme tensions and dangers. In such cases, the cultural-intellectual constitution of a society can, for a historical moment, become decisive for great transforma- tional progress. For the historian and researcher of revolution Manfred Kossok, an upheaval in philosophical thinking (as the core element of a general cultural revolution) is one of the three decisive levels of revolutionary upheaval (Kos- sok, 1988: 44). The necessary renewal of the political cul- ture of the left, including the LEFT PARTY, will only be a part of such a general cultural revolu- tion. The rapid unfolding by the left of its own political culture of solidarity will strengthen it in the coming intellectual-political struggles for the way forward after the crisis, by means of a commonality that can overcome disagreements of opinion, and through the increased credibility and the moral appeal of such a culture. More- over, the cultural level of interpersonal relation- ships will, in the inevitable future change of ways of life, be of first-rate significance. How- ever, even a left culture will not exist outside the influences of competitive capitalist society, so that the change of the culture of the left will become a part of its project for a just society of freedom, social equality and solidarity for all.
LITERATURE
Altvater, Elmar, 2009: Die kapitalistischen Pla- gen. Energiekrise und Klimakollaps, Hunger und Finanzchaos. In: Bltter fr deutsche und inter- nationale Politik. 3 Altvater, Elmar/Brunnengrber, Achim (Hrsg.), 2008: Ablasshandel gegen Klimawan- del? Marktbasierte Instrumente in der globalen Klimapolitik und ihre Alternativen. Hamburg Anders, Gnter, 1085: Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, Bd. 1. ber die Seele im Zeital- ter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. Mn- chen Arbeitsgruppe Alternative Wirtschaftspolitik, 2009: Memorandum 2009. Von der Krise in den Absturz? Stabilisierung, Umbau, Demokratisie- rung. Kln Bahr, Egon (Hrsg.), 2008: Weltgesellschaft. Ein Projekt von links!. Berlin Bahro, Rudolf, 1089: Logik der Rettung. Wer kann die Apokalypse aufhalten? Ein Ver- such ber die Grundlagen kologischer Politik. Stuttgart/Wien Brand, Ulrich, 2009: Staatseuphorie ohne Strategie. Zur Lage der Linken im Postneolibera- lismus. In: Bltter fr deutsche und internationa- le Politik 4 Binswanger, Hans Christoph, 2006: Die Wachstumsspirale. Geld, Energie und Imagina- tion in der Dynamik des Marktprozesses. Mar- burg Bischoff, Joachim/ Huffschmid, Jrg/ Nick, Harry/ Reuter, Norbert/ Steinitz, Klaus/ Zinn, Karl Georg, 2006: In der Stagnationsfalle. Perspekti- ven kapitalistischer Entwicklung. Hamburg Beck, Ulrich/Ziegler, Ulf Erdmann, 1997: ei- genes leben. Ausflge in die unbekannte Ge- sellschaft, in der wir leben. Mnchen Brie, Michael, 2007: Der Kampf um gesell- schaftliche Mehrheiten. In: Brie, Michael / Hil- debrandt, Cornelia / Meuche-Mker, Meinhard (Hrsg.): DIE LINKE. Wohin verndert sie die Republik. Berlin Brie, Michael, 2009: Sind wir Auto? In: Lu- xemburg. Gesellschaftsanalyse und linke Praxis, 1: In der Krise/ Brie, Michael/Klein, Dieter, 1992: Nachwort: ber ein Institut. In: Brie, Michael/Klein, Dieter (Hrsg.): Zwischen den Zeiten. Ein Jahrhundert verabschiedet sich. Berlin Brown, Lester R., 2008: Plan B 3.0. Mobilizing to save civilization. New York/London
23 Burkett, Paul, 2006: Marxism and Ecological Economics, Leiden Candeias, Mario, 2009: Neoliberalismus Hochtechnologie Hegemonie. Grundrisse ei- ner transnationalen kapitalistischen Produkti- ons- und Lebensweise. Eine Kritik. Berlin Carlson, Lewis/Unger, Frank, 1992: Ameri- ka. Der gespaltene Traum. Berlin Cecena, Ana Ester, 2009: Gesellschaftliche Gabelungen. In: Luxemburg. Gesellschaftsana- lyse und linke Praxis 1: In der Krise. Falkinger, Joseph, 1986: Sttigung. Morali- sche und psychologische Grenzen des Wachs- tums. Tbingen Global Scenario Group/Stockholm Environ- ment Institute Boston, 2003: Great Transition. Umbrche und bergnge auf dem Weg zu einer planetarischen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M Habermas, Jrgen, 1990:die nachholende Revolution, Frankfurt/M Hobsbawn, Eric, 1994: The Age of Extre- mes. The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. United Kingdom. Institut fr Gesellschaftsanalyse, 1/2009: Die Krise des Finanzmarkt-Kapitalismus Her- ausforderung fr die Linke. In: Rosa- Luxemburg-Stiftung (Hrsg.): kontrovers 1 Institut fr Gesellschaftsanalyse, 2/2009: Die gesellschaftliche Linke in den gegenwrti- gen Krisen. In: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Hrsg.): kontrovers 2 Kaufmann, Stephan/Mller, Tadzio, 2009: Grner Kapitalismus. Krise, Klimawandel und kein Ende des Wachstums. Berlin Klein, Dieter, 1990: Steht Deutschland wirk- lich im Frhlingsflor? In: Neues Deutschland, 18.8. Klein, Dieter, 1991: Doppelte Modernisie- rung im Osten: Illusion oder Option der Ge- schichte? In: Brie, Michael/Klein, Dieter (Hrsg.) Umbruch zur Moderne? Hamburg Klein, Dieter, 2002: Demokratischer Sozia- lismus als transformatorisches Projekt. Ein Bei- trag zur Programmdiskussion der PDS. In: Brie, Michael/Chrapa, Michael/Klein, Dieter: Sozialis- mus als Tagesaufgabe. Berlin Klein. Dieter, 2006: Milliardre Kassenlee- re. Rtselhafter Verbleib des anschwellenden Reichtums. Berlin Klein, Dieter, 2009: Grner Kapitalismus Irrweg oder aufzuheben in einer sozial- kologischen Transformation. In: Kaufmann, Stephan/Mller, Tadzio: Grner Kapitalismus. Krise, Klimawandel und kein Ende des Wachs- tums. Berlin Kossok, Manfred, 1988: 1989 Versuch ei- ner Positionsbestimmung. In: Institut fr Mar- xistische Studien und Forschungen: Die Franz- sische Revolution. 1789 1989. Revolutions- theorie heute. Jahrbuch des IMSF 14, Frank- furt/M Lepenies, Wolf, 1992: Folgen einer unerhr- ten Begebenheit. Berlin Mayer, Hans, 2000: Brgerliche Endzeit. Reden und Vortrge 1980 bis 2000. Frankfurt/M Merkel, Wolfgang, 199: Systemtransforma- tion. Eine Einfhrung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung. Opladen Mller-Hilmer, Rita, 2006: Gesellschaft im Reformprozess. Berlin Neugebauer, Gero, 2007: Politische Milieus in Deutschland. Die Studie der Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung. Bonn North, Douglass, C., 2005: Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, New Yersey Parsons, Talcott, 1969: Das Problem des Strukturwandels: eine theoretische Skizze. In: Zapf, Wolfgang (Hrsg.): Theorien des sozialen Wandels. Kln Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (Hrsg.), 2000: Re- formalternativen. Sozial, kologisch, zivil. Berlin Seibert, Thomas, 2009: Strategisches Sze- nario, gewonnen im Rckblick auf italienische Ereignisse. In: rls papers. Berlin Semprun, Jorge, 1981: Was fr ein schner Sonntag! Mnchen Smith, Neil, 2008: Zur kapitalistischen Pro- duktion von Natur. In: Argument 6 van der Pijl, Kees, 2009: Die herrschende Klasse schlgt sich nicht schlecht. In: Luxem- burg. Gesellschaftsanalyse und linke Praxis. 1: In der Krise Wahl, Peter, 2009: Entwaffnet die Mrkte! Der Finanzcrash Ursachen, Hintergrnde, Al- ternativen. Attac Basis Texte 32. Hamburg Wallis, Victor, 2008: Wider die These von der Produktion der Natur. In: Argument 6
24 Weber, Max, 1988: Gesammelte Aufstze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tbingen Welzer, Harald, 2008: Klimakriege. Wofr im 21. Jahrhundert gettet wird. Frankfurt/M Witt, Uwe, 1998: Kann es nachhaltiges umweltvertragliches Wachstum geben? Unver- ffentlichtes Manuskript. Bonn Wolf, Frieder Otto, 2009: Den Green New Deal instandbesetzen! In: Luxemburg. Gesell- schaftsanalyse und linke Praxis. 1 Wuppertal Institut, 2008: Zukunftsfhiges Deutschland in einer globalisierten Welt. Eine Studie des Wuppertal Instituts fr Klima, Um- welt, Energie. Herausgegeben von: Bund fr Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland/Brot fr die Welt. Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst. Frankfurt/M Zapf, Wolfgang, 1992: Die Transformation in der ehemaligen DDR und die soziologische Theorie der Modernisierung. Max-Planck- Institut fr Gesellschaftsforschung: MPIFG Dis- cussion Papier 92/4. Mnchen Zinn. Karl Georg, 2002: Konjunktur und Wachstum. Hamburg Zinn, Karl Georg, 2008: Die Keynessche Al- ternative. Beitrge zur Keynesschen Stagnati- onstheorie, zur Geschichtsvergessenheit der konomik und zur Frage einer linken Wirt- schaftspolitik. Hamburg.
THE AUTHOR
Prof. Ph.D. Dieter Klein was for many years di- rector of the Commission for Future Social Developments (Zukunftskommission) of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. He is editor of the series "einundzwanzig".
Further publications by Dieter Klein:
1989/2009 UNEINGELSTES, Series Standpunkte - 20/2009 KRISENKAPITALISMUS, Wohin es geht, wenn es so weitergeht. Series: ei- nundzwanzig by RLS, Vol. 1