“Many of the achievements of capitalism are so beneficial that no one would want to be without them. Material wealth has immaterial consequences. Not only has life expectancy doubled, but general education, equality and democracy only become possible when a society becomes richer.” Ulrike Herrmann makes this statement in the current bible of all critics of capitalism, the bestseller “The End of Capitalism”.
But that’s not all: The editor of the “Taz” recognizes the innovative power of this economic system as well as the fact that capitalism has succeeded in halving extreme poverty worldwide over the past 20 years. Definitely a success story, which is described in the first third of the book and which should have surprised quite a few readers.
But unfortunately, explains Herrmann, capitalism requires more and more energy and resources. This would overwhelm the world ecologically and lead to climate catastrophe.
The “green growth” postulated as a solution is nothing more than a political marketing ploy with which the actors wanted to hide the fact that neither the circular economy nor renewable energies could sustain today’s economic system. “It is scientifically inadmissible to make statements that have not been researched at all. Unfortunately, this is the norm among climate economists,” she states matter-of-factly and appropriately.
According to the consistent logic, all that remains is the renunciation. No more private cars, no more flights to other cities. We should only consume as little as we did 50 years ago and would have to do without some of the very energy-intensive ways of life that we have come to love.
Daniel Stelter is the founder of the discussion forum “beyond the obvious”, which specializes in strategy and macroeconomics, as well as a management consultant and author. Every Sunday his podcast goes online at www.think-bto.com.
(Photo: Robert Recker/ Berlin)
But since capitalism is only stable as long as it grows – like a bicycle that falls over as soon as it stops moving – such a renunciation of consumption would have to lead to a severe economic depression.
>> Read here: It’s time to pull the emergency brake on climate protection – one comment
The state could only counteract this by following the example of the English war economy in World War II, telling companies what to produce, allocating resources and the several million people who lose their jobs in the automotive and chemical industries and in aviation would create new employment in the field of climate protection. This is not “eco-socialism”, as private property would remain, says Herrmann.
But just as little as private property alone defines capitalism – as Herrmann also states – its superficial preservation is not enough to avoid ending in socialism. Private real estate owners were not expropriated in the GDR either, only the rents were capped and repairs could not be financed, apart from the missing materials. The result was visible in the cityscape of East German cities.
Carbon pricing not yet used sufficiently
Just as real estate decayed back then, so would the new, now state-run, private companies come to an end. Without pressure to innovate, without the possibility of financing and without rewards for the entrepreneur.
>> Read here: Innovations instead of renunciation: How we save the climate – and our freedom
Whether the “more equal society” created in this way would really be happier, as Herrmann postulates, can be doubted, just as it can be doubted that Germany will become the much-vaunted role model for the world on this path. Entrepreneurial people will easily find refuge abroad and thus accelerate the decline here at home.
In any case, the conclusion of the book is surprising. Since capitalism is the most dynamic, innovative and best anti-poverty economic system, as also recognized by Ulrike Herrmann, it falls short to claim that pricing CO2 with taxes or certificates would not be enough to bring about change. Until now, the toolbox has been significantly underused, mainly due to the lack of inclusion of the largest emitters of CO2, namely the USA and China.
Germany cannot save the global climate on its own. Even if it were possible to become climate-neutral in this country tomorrow, the effect would be less than the annual global increase in CO2 emissions. It would be much better to consistently make significantly more funds available for research and development in order to develop the climate-neutral technologies that humanity needs.
Eco-socialism will neither save the world climate nor lead to a happier society. Eco-capitalism will do it. Germany has the choice of which path to pursue. The world will go the capitalist way.
Daniel Stelter is the founder of the discussion forum “beyond the obvious”, which specializes in strategy and macroeconomics, as well as a management consultant and author. Every Sunday his podcast goes online at www.think-bto.com.
More: Why there is no end to capitalism – a polemic