“The end of capitalism”, the title of Ulrike Herrmann’s new book, has already been predicted by many. A certain Karl Marx, for example, who derived this prognosis from his theory of surplus value, with which he explained the capitalist process in Capital and completely ignored the role of capital. We know the result: the workers ultimately chose capitalism when asked.
There have also been many ideas to abolish it, for example in 2019 in “The Consequences of Capitalism” by Noam Chomsky and Mary Waterstone. There is a proposal to let the workers run the businesses. An idea whose weaknesses in old Yugoslavia have already been empirically proven extensively; In the long run, the non-functioning capital market has led to a non-functioning labor market.
Slogans hostile to capitalism are also sometimes heard at “Fridays for Future” demonstrations; You can’t blame young people who have grown up in this system and who experience that the climate is simply being damaged more and more. But those who deal with the topic for a longer period of time should see more clearly.
Capitalism simply means: Capital can be used where it is needed. It also means that wealth is wasted less on luxury and used more productively. Both together have proven their worth, especially in connection with the European welfare state.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
On closer analysis, however, there is neither reason to long for the end of capitalism nor the prospect that it will do itself out. Nevertheless, the thought is apparently still fascinating, why else would it be taken up again and again? An author like the historian Werner Plumpe, who published a comprehensive and quite apologetic history of capitalism in 2019 under the heading “The Cold Heart”, has a harder time: criticism of the system still sounds more intellectual than criticism of a system-critical but ultimately misguided ideology .
Capitalism too fixated on growth
Hermann wrote an early eulogy for capitalism and combined it with the claim to contribute to solving the climate crisis. A thought that is probably irrefutable as long as capitalism continues and climate change also continues, although that doesn’t mean that one is the consequence of the other.
At first, the author proceeds very skilfully. She admits that capitalism has created a lot of wealth. She also distances herself from overly naïve degrowth ideas, according to which one simply has to choke off growth so that the climate is automatically less damaged. However, she is also of the opinion that capitalism is too fixated on growth and therefore cannot be steered onto ecologically justifiable paths – with which she agrees with degrowth once again.
In the end, she comes up with an idea that could hardly be more grotesque: the current economic system should be remodeled after the British wartime economy. Grotesque for several reasons: First, the British did not abolish capitalism at all, but only intervened in it temporarily, so that the “solution” to the climate problem does not fit the thesis of the book.
More on the subject:
Secondly, there is no war today, which is usually temporary and highly national, while climate change is a protracted international crisis. Herrmann admits this, but does not draw any conclusions from it.
Third, it believes that planned economies have not worked in the past because companies have been nationalized, and overlooks the fact that markets are taking over the steering function that it wants to wrest from them and hand over to the government.
And fourthly: Which party that claims to dictate to companies and citizens in future what they have to consume would make it over the five percent hurdle?
Why are the Brits mentioned as a role model, after all, the Nazis operated a very similar war economy? Because Britain is supposed to provide proof that a command economy is also possible in a democracy and not just in an (eco)dictatorship. But would the British have given the government so much leeway had it not been for the pressure of the war? Hardly likely.
Ulrike Herrmann: The end of capitalism
Kiepenheuer & Witsch
Cologne 2022
352 pages
24.00 euros
And in Germany you can’t even agree on whether eco-gasoline makes sense or whether a nuclear power plant can run for three months longer without the most difficult of negotiations. How is an economy supposed to function in which the state does not own the companies, but “only” dictates what they have to produce?
If you talk to leftists who are ecologically moved, you can see that there are two camps. On the one hand, there are those who actually believe that you have to change the entire system in order to save the world. They seem to make for a hopeful readership.
Then there are also many who dislike capitalism but concede that tackling climate change cannot wait until the system is gone or replaced by something better. Convinced market economists can also work very pragmatically with this second category in environmental policy. Not with the first category.
>>Read here: Greta Thunberg’s “Climate Book”: A truth that is becoming more uncomfortable every day
Hermann and the degrowth supporters are right that much more needs to happen to combat climate change. Your skepticism that the economy can go green without hurting anyone is entirely realistic. The assertion that prices, as market economists demand, cannot limit resource consumption is less convincing.
Herrmann writes that most drivers can afford high fuel prices. But maybe they’re just not high enough, and maybe there aren’t enough good alternatives to the car. It is true that there can and must be direct restrictions in addition to the price signals.
An example of this is local politics, which has a major impact on where and how many cars can drive on the streets – but also on the quality of local public transport. Joins a scheme that it actually wants to fight.
There will be no end to capitalism for two reasons
Firstly, because there is no viable alternative, and a war economy with state resource allocation is only useful for war. But the second reason is almost more important. We can already see how difficult it is to implement a consistent climate policy, because there are almost always losers.
How much harder would it be to do away with the system, which Herrmann admits creates a lot of wealth? Even the idea that capitalism will die by itself if the climate crisis hits even harder does not lead very far. Above all – what should be the consequence today?
In truth, it is very bourgeois-comfortable to philosophize about the end of capitalism instead of campaigning for better climate policy. If the system inevitably leads to hell, there is no need to worry about what needs to be done here and in today’s political and social context.
The book thus fits into a scheme that it actually wants to combat: finding substitute actions for politics and being satisfied with them. We then fly around with eco-kerosene, drive eco-cars, eat eco-bananas and invest in eco-funds, buy eco-electricity and read eco-books.
But the consumption of primary energy continues to rise, is still not covered sustainably, and in the end nothing changes because we are postponing everything drastic until we have found a viable alternative to capitalism.
In fact, the political options for combating climate change within the existing order have long been known, but they are far from exhausted. What could help would therefore be a consistent policy, for example in the areas of transport, energy production, real estate renovation. What is missing is the will to do so. It’s that simple – and that difficult.
More: Readers’ Prize winner Katja Diehl: “Do you want or do you have to drive a car?”