How the Story of the Left Disappeared

“Democracy is a bit like Father Christmas,” says Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek. He’s sitting in T-shirt and denim at a small table on the Burgtheater’s stage in Vienna. “Everybody will tell you: ‘Of course I don’t believe in Santa, but I play along with it for the sake of the children.’ The same goes for democracy these days. Nobody believes in it anymore but everybody just keeps playing along.”

It’s comments like this from Zizek, a Marxist, that gets them laughing. Nevertheless, there is something in it, because it explains Labour’s poor performance in Thursday’s British elections – which comes in the midst of the worst economic and financial crisis that we have experienced in the last hundred years. In Poland, where people voted yesterday as well, the Left has not been up to much for years now: both the government and main opposition party are right wing. In France, the Socialists got trounced in local elections recently. Additionally, the near-implosion of the PvdA (Dutch Labour party), of the Greek and Spanish Socialists can largely be reduced to the fact that – precisely at a time when multinationals are becoming more powerful and inequality between citizens is growing rapidly – they are performing a role in a political play that they themselves hardly believe in anymore. To use Zizek’s words: “They act it”.

The voters can sense this with uncanny instinct. It is not for nothing that Thomas Piketty’s book is such a hype, that people are upset about bankers’ bonuses, that Syriza’s ideologies hit such a nerve. Zizek’s polemical lectures have reached cult status. The Burgtheater was completely sold out. There were waiting lists. The Socialist City Councillor for Culture listened for two hours in the first row to tirades about ‘commodity hedonism’, which is, according to Zizek, on course, in part thank to the Left, to sidelining the European democracies. The Social Democrats know it all too well: they have lost their narrative.

The Left’s narrative has in essence always been an economic and social discourse: the narrative of the just society. It was that narrative that made Socialists and Capitalists come to verbal blows in the past. Election campaigns centered on the clash between two opposing economic worldviews and narratives. That was the focus of the main debates. When the Left got elected, you got a radically different economic and social policy than when the right won. That dichotomy in politics has all but disappeared. These days, a left-wing government practically follows an identical economic policy as the right. Due to globalisation, that policy is decided high above their heads: by the ‘markets’, the IMF, the troika or in the boardrooms of bond fund Pimco. A prominent Socialist politician in a European country in trouble declined to be interviewed this week ,,because Wall Street will give me a dressing down if I say one word wrong.’’ He is entitled to his ideas, as long as he keeps them to himself. In short, his room for manoeuvre is nil.

The economic globalisation has blurred the main difference between the left and the right. They have merged into the establishment. Election debates only really focus on other, non-economic themes anymore. About Islam. About GMO’s. About the question whether you are allowed to insult the king or not. In The Netherlands, the government nearly had to resign over the fate of a few failed asylum seekers. In Poland, the main political debate of the last five years has centred on a plane crash in Smolensk, which killed the president. The German SPD has swallowed its criticism of Angela Merkel’s Euro-policy now they are in government together with Merkel. Their grassroots are grumbling: the SPD is losing face. That is why the party leader Gabriel is now eagerly seizing an NSA-bugging scandal to push back at the Chancellor. The media, always game for pseudo-controversies, are giving him a helping hand.

Not that this does not matter. But it does not deal with the substance. This is a distraction and does not concern the just society that the Left stood for. Sometimes, the SPD still manages to create a distinct profile for itself – however, it is rarely for ‘left-wing’ issues anymore. Many voters are missing that voice to the left. You do not need to read Piketty to see in that our economies are beginning to look more and more like the former right-wing ideal. The difference between rich and poor is growing. Governments steeped in debt because they had to rescue top-heavy banks, are slimming down at top speed. They are privatising and liberalising left, right and centre. Administrators have no choice, left-wing administrators have no choice either: they have the markets breathing down their necks.

You would say that this is the moment above all others for the Left to score. But voters can hardly distinguish that narrative anymore. In the political centre, they find an establishment narrative about budget discipline, reforms and cuts. Both the Left and the Right promise jobs and economic growth. There is only a single economic policy, about which debate is not possible. Elections cannot change anything about that. Greek voters dismissed their government because they wanted a different economic policy, but the new rulers will not manage to implement that policy within the Euro zone. That is one of the reasons why fewer and fewer Europeans vote. Or that they vote for ‘something new’ out of a sense of contrariness and frustration, making it feel ever so slightly and briefly like a democracy.

The Social Democrats offer citizens, contrary to what happened after previous economic crises, no solutions. What is more, they share responsibility for this situation. For decades, Socialist politicians, as the Conservatives, have made every effort to enable globalisation. Conservative parties did this out of a sense of conviction. They wanted a capitalist society with strong business(es) and a weak state. The Socialists did it because globalisation freed up cheap credit, which in turn allowed them to keep on paying out benefits, pensions and other gains of the post-war welfare state. That was unwise, we now know – but their motives were understandable: they wanted to prevent social unrest. They had already had an overdose of that in the first half of the twentieth century.

The German Sociologist, Wolfgang Streeck, recently told this newspaper that capitalism and the welfare state ,,do not go together’’. It is by definition impossible to give employers and investors free rein and simultaneously pay employees enough, protect the weak and have public institutions function as they should. That only worked after the war. And even then only briefly: approximately twenty years. “This was an exceptional period,” said Streeck: ,,Employers and trade unions were so traumatised by the horrors of two wars, that they were temporarily prepared to swallow important demands and agree far-reaching compromises.’’ However, at the end of the sixties, the employers had tired of the galling bonds of this social system. They wanted to make more profits. Spread their wings. From that moment onwards, there was only one way to continue paying for the already expensive welfare state: on credit.

And so it happened. At first, European governments borrowed money themselves. That worked well for a while. But then their debts became insurmountable and governments were ordered by the same markets that gave them the credit to introduce cutbacks and privatisation. At the same time they liberalised the financial sector so that citizens could now obtain cheap credit directly. As a result, public debts went down in the nineties, but private debts of businesses and families exploded. In this last, decisive phase prior to the 2008 crash, left-wing politicians also played a big part. Tony Blair made the British economy dependent on the City. Bill Clinton allowed corporate banks to speculate again with savings. When Lehman toppled and the banking crisis in Europe kicked off, there were hardly any Socialists in the European Parliament with economy, finance or monetary affairs in their portfolios. PvdA member, Ieke van den Burg, who did throw herself into it because she did not want to leave financial regulation to the Conservatives, was bitter about this. The Left did partly have themselves to blame for the excesses of the free market, she said at her farewell in 2009. ,,We have gone down the path of economic liberalisation, in the guise of free trade, too much, and have offered too few proposals to make Europe more social.’’ Or rather: the Left was asleep.

That is the score that is now being settled with the Left. The crisis continues. Citizens are realising more and more that politicians have become managers, who do little more than keeping the ship more or less on course – a course that is laid out somewhere else. Those managers promise less and less, because they are unable to deliver the goods. Their campaigns are not based on arguments with respect to contents, but on sentiments. Spin-doctors think of what can help them win elections, all the rest is marketing. Politicians are no longer leaders, but followers. They run their country or province like a business. No wonder that half of Eastern Europe is governed by former business leaders and that Carly Fiorina thinks that you can manage America like a computer company.

The Left is licking its wounds. Many Socialist politicians are cynical and embarrassed. Not the self-assured types you as a voter would trust with your vote. It is that shame that also isolates them from each other, because it is a feeling they would prefer not to admit to. That is one of the reasons for a lot of squabbling on the left. About the course, the strategy, everything. Europe’s Conservative political family shows a lot more solidarity. Their ideology is prospering. David Cameron who wins the elections after five years of slashing the budget – you try it. This will reverberate for a long time. It makes it easier for the Conservatives to sweep internal ‘glitches’, such as the populist capers of the Hungarian Prime Minister Orban, under the carpet more easily.

What now? Syriza, in Greece, is going back to the basics of Marxism. Many European Socialists have some sympathy for that – as long as it stays in Greece. They are too well off themselves to preach for a revolution. That is the genius of our capitalist society, said Zizek: that they are making the revolution virtually impossible. There are ,,modern forms of serfdom and slavery’’ in our society, but without a Left and a Right there is very little sign of the class struggle for the time being: ,,Even the losers of this capitalism, like people who have been the victim of cutbacks, and if freelancers work harder for less money, shout it from the rooftops that they are happy with ‘their new freedom’!’’ There is no other word for it, it is truly: genius.

Commentaries on the Refugee Crisis

Europe’s First Failure

Generous help for Syria’s neighbours could stem the flow of refugees

European countries will not be able to stop the flow of refugees from the south, not with troops, fences or new border controls within the EU. If Macedonia closes the border with Greece, people will just stream over the barriers. If Hungary builds high walls at the border, the refugees will find new ways, possibly via Croatia. Those involved in the business of assisting the passage of immigrants will not be deterred by the threat of stiff penalties; most of them are not bands of criminals. They are providing a service which is desperately needed.

Bavarian customs officers will not be able to keep those who have made it as far as Austria away from their promised land: Germany. Even the images of violence by right-wing extremists against asylum seekers in Saxony will not achieve that. And anyway, all the EU countries are working against each on the political level because they all want to get rid of the refugees as quickly as possible.

But there are options for stemming the tide of refugees. No one would casually make the decision to undertake a deadly journey across the Mediterranean or be really keen to take the Balkan route to the north. Contrary to common belief, Syrians and Iraqis do not usually come to Europe because they fear for their lives. After all, when they leave the war-torn territory they first go to neighbouring countries, i.e. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. They are no longer in mortal danger there but they are confronted with appalling living conditions.

These countries have made a great contribution in terms of assisting the refugees, but they, as well as the international organisations, have been left in the lurch by Europe. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has barely over half the resources required for minimum provisions and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has had to reduce food vouchers drastically because they have run out of money.

This is not just miserable – it is also short-sighted. In the initial years many Syrian refugees held out in the neighbourhood in the hope of a peaceful solution. The current stream to the north is a sign of despair. On account of the poor prospects people feel the long trek to Europe is worthwhile.

Many opportunities to improve the refugees’ situation in the region have already been missed. But even now it would be possible to conclude an agreement with Turkey whereby the EU countries would provide several billion euros to make encampments into areas where life with human dignity close to the homeland would be possible. In return Ankara could better protect their own maritime border and allow refugees to take up a legal occupation.

“Many opportunities to improve the refugees’ situation in the region have already been missed.”

Options for legal immigration could also stem the tide of illegal immigrants to the EU. This does not mean that millions have to be accepted, but specific working visas for Syrian doctors and engineers as well as granting tens of thousands of student visas would be helpful. A family that knows a son or daughter can go to a European university will find it easier to hold out a bit longer in a Turkish encampment.

Even then, thousands would risk the journey northwards and each country would still be required to treat the arrivals in a humane way. But if there were more generous aid it would be possible to appeal with justification to prospective refugees to remain where they are.

24/08/2015

Decency is only a first step

The acceptance of refugees in Austria and Germany raises new questions

Austria and Germany did the only right thing when they accepted the refugees stranded in Hungary at the weekend without bureaucratic hurdles. Any different decision would have been a blatant contravention of our society’s values.

But this upsurge of human values between Nickelsdorf and Munich does not bring us any closer to a solution of the refugee problem. The flow to Europe will not abate – if anything it will increase. This raises new questions which no one yet has an answer for.

No matter how unacceptable the cynical treatment of the refugees by the Hungarian authorities may be, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is right on one point: the German government itself contributed to the latest exodus from Syria to Europe via the Western Balkans by declaring itself willing to accept the people. The latest images that signify willingness to help may tempt more families from the unpleasant encampments in the region to risk the dangerous trip to their dream destination, i.e. Germany.

But how many asylum seekers can Germany accept before the hostility to foreigners in the east spreads across the whole country? Will Chancellor Angela Merkel then still be saying “We will manage” if the number of new arrivals exceeds the million mark this year – plus there is no end in sight? The first voices of dissent from the CSU party suggest we can expect trouble. And how long will it be before the German right-wing populists enjoy a boost like Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria?

The EU quota solution pushed by Berlin and Vienna offers just as little as the special summit called for in vain. It is not just that Eastern Europe has expressed a wholesale rejection of the model – even if the Juncker Plan concerning the distribution of up to 160,000 refugees in Europa could be implemented, the question remains open as to what happens with those who arrive now.

How is the EU going to deal with the refugee crisis which is threatening to occur in Serbia once Orbán actually closes the border? The country is poorer than Hungary and has a strong tradition of hostility to Islam. And who is going to help Macedonia which is already overstretched if Serbia itself does not allow any more refugees in? What is to be done if more inflatable boats capsize in the Aegean in the coming autumn months? Perhaps more help at the locations will deter these people from fleeing.

Some people believe the solution is a European military intervention in Syria to end the war. Those who take this view include not only the Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz who of course won’t to take part in it but also the British Prime Minister, David Cameron; he wants to support US air strikes against the Islamic State. Russia too is considering intervention – an expansion of the military assistance for the crisis-stricken Assad regime. This threatens to destroy the recent hope of a diplomatic solution. Interventions from outside will prolong the conflict – possibly by many years.

The victory of decency over meanness at the weekend in no way changes the helplessness and cluelessness of all parties involved in the face of the biggest flow of refugees in our time. And the longer it continues, the more difficult it will be to mobilise the willingness to help.

07/09/2015

How Austria needs to change

Immigration is increasing pressure to implement reforms that have been neglected

No one can say at present whether providing for and integrating the refugees from the Middle East will cost hundreds of millions or many billions. But one thing is certain: the flow of immigrants will change Austria. And whether society will manage this gigantic challenge depends not only on money but also on willingness to accept change.

This concerns mainly economic and socio-political spheres in which there has long been a need for reform even without the flow of refugees. The Economic Research Institute boss Karl Aiginger has addressed one of them: success stories of migrants are mostly associated with entrepreneurship. One frequent hindrance to setting up company is the Industrial Code which in many professions blocks new workers, restricts competition and should have been sorted out long ago.

There are many other examples of this type. When immigrants find work, it is usually at the lower end of the pay scale where they do not pay any tax but they do pay relatively high social security contributions. The reduction of ancillary wage costs for low earners, which has long been called for by experts, was again not included in the latest tax reform. Now there are new reasons to address this issue quickly.

The strict work protection measures are also frequently a hindrance to the recruitment of employees which especially prevent small businesses from increasing their workforce. Here again, a modest liberalisation could create new jobs. And if retailers without employees could open on Sundays and in the marginal times of the day, that would especially make use of migrants.

Something also needs to change in residential construction. Austria is a world master in high-quality social housing, and costs have spiralled out of control due to constant increasing standards and requirements. There is already a need for tens of thousands of residential buildings, especially around Vienna, and the need for affordable housing will now probably increase rapidly. Of course we shouldn’t have any prefabricated buildings but a way needs to be found to reduce construction costs – possibly by simplifying the construction regulations and curtailing some standards. Fire protection, disabled access, passive house design, architectonic quality – all that is important, but what is more important is that tens of thousands of new inhabitants need to find a place to live.

In the sphere of health, immigration will increase the pressure on out-patient departments. Most migrants are in the habit of going to a local hospital instead of a GP. Relief will be provided anyway by the planned creation of primary care centres in the urban areas which are strongly contested by the Medical Council. The government must speed up the process here, even if it means making concessions to the doctors. Otherwise queues in the big hospitals will grow even longer.

In the education sector Austria cannot afford to offer the socially disadvantaged so few career opportunities as at present. If the SPÖ and ÖVP parties continue to be obstructive, we cannot be surprised if people say in a few years from now: immigration was managed but integration failed.

01/10/2015

And who cares about us?

Solidarity with refugees increases citizens’ feeling of abandonment

It was an impressive demonstration of the other Austria, the one that wants decent treatment of refugees and the maintenance of a welcoming culture. On a Saturday evening it is easier to go to a concert at Heldenplatz in Vienna than to help new arrivals at the Westbahnhof station or in Nickelsdorf. And the same basic attitude is reflected – one that is not afraid of immigration but which regards it as an opportunity for society and which is at least not willing to make compassion and solidarity dependent on the origin of those involved.

The same spirit is imparted by Economic Research Institute boss Karl Aiginger who has repeatedly emphasised that Austria managed to deal with immigration in the past and that countries profit from migration provided the basic conditions are right. And in Germany it is the chancellor herself who stands firm not only against open xenophobia but also against the stemming of the tide of refugees by stricter laws and measures demanded by many party supporters. Humanity comes first, says Angela Merkel.

But in the case of a substantial part of the population these messages fall on deaf ears – including the electorate in Vienna. On the contrary: the more frequently Social Democrats and Greens, experts and journalists emphasise the positive aspects of the refugee drama, the more these people feel abandoned with their concerns and their anger. For many people the overt provision of welfare for foreigners bolsters their conviction that their own needs are being neglected.

“Individual responsibility gives way to accusations.”

Everything which is painful and deficient in everyday life is suddenly regarded as an entitlement that is not being fulfilled by politicians and the state. Individual responsibility gives way to accusations. New arrivals are just as responsible for their problems as those in power who allow them to be received. The sense of commonality is turning into a fear of coming off worse in a predatory competition. This feeling is poisoning the political climate and driving voters into the hands of the right wing FPÖ party.

Of course, most people in Vienna know that those who are granted asylum are not really responsible for increasing accommodation costs, job losses and higher taxes – and not everybody believes the rumours about generous social services for foreigners. And just the uncertainty as to how long the influx of refugees will continue and how it will change the country in the end is enough to turn a latent dissatisfaction into protest votes. The politicians in office find it difficult to counter this. Austria already has one of the highest social standards in the world, and Vienna has come even further in many areas. Most citizens have affordable housing and jobs that are not in serious jeopardy. The crime rate remains low, and where crime does occur the asylum seekers are seldom involved in it.

But making reference to all these facts is not much help in addressing the general feeling of abandonment. And in the area of the empathy exhibited many politicians still have far to go. Even if it might appear like a meaningless ritual, the message “We care about you” has to come across better so that society holds together.

05/10/2015