"Now we are Masters of Our Fate": The Last Romantic Sir Winston Churchill

I feel greatly honoured that you should have invited me to enter the United States Senate Chamber and address the representatives of both branches of Congress. The fact that my American forebears have for so many generations played their part in the life of the United States, and that here I am, an Englishman, welcomed in your midst, makes this experience one of the most moving and thrilling in my life, which is already long and has not been entirely uneventful. I wish indeed that my mother, whose memory I cherish across the vale of years, could have been here to see. By the way, I cannot help reflecting that if my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way round, I might have got here on my own. In that case, this would not have been the first time you would have heard my voice. In that case I should not have needed any invitation, but if I had, it is hardly likely it would have been unanimous. So perhaps things are better as they are. I may confess, however, that I do not feel quite like a fish out of water in a legislative assembly where English is spoken.

I am a child of the House of Commons. I was brought up in my father's house to believe in democracy. 'Trust the people' - that was his message. I used to see him cheered at meetings and in the streets by crowds of working men way back in those aristocratic Victorian days when, as Disraeli said, the world was for the few, and for the very few. Therefore I have been in full harmony all my life with the tides which have flowed on both side of the Atlantic against privilege and monopoly, and I have steered confidently towards the Gettysburg ideal of 'government of the people by the people for the people'. I owe my advance entirely to the House of Commons, whose servant I am. In my country, as in yours, public men are proud to be the servants of the State and would be ashamed to be its masters. On any day, if they thought the people wanted it, the House of Commons could by a simple vote remove me from my office. But I am not worrying about it at all. As a matter of fact, I am sure they will approve very highly of my journey here, for which I obtained the King's permission in order to meet the President of the United States and to arrange with him all that mapping-out of our military plans, and for all those intimate meetings of the high officers of the armed services of both countries, which are indispensable to the successful prosecution of the war.

I should like to say first of all how much I have been impressed and encouraged by the breadth of view and sense of proportion which I have found in all quarters over here to which I have had access. Anyone who did not understand the size and solidarity of the foundations of the United States might easily have expected to find an excited, disturbed, self-centred atmosphere, with all minds fixed upon the novel, startling and painful episodes of sudden war as they hit America. After all, the United States have been attacked and set upon by three most powerfully armed dictator States. The greatest military power in Europe, the greatest military power in Asia, German and Japan, Italy, too, have all declared, and are making, war upon you, and a quarrel is opened, which can only end in their overthrow or yours. But here in Washington, in these memorable days, I have found an Olympian fortitude which, far from being based upon complacency, is only the mask of an inflexible purpose and the proof of a sure and well-grounded confidence in the final outcome. We in Britain had the same feeling in our darkest days. We, too, were sure in the end all would be well. You do not, I am certain, underrate the severity of the ordeal to which you and we have still to be subjected. The forces ranged against us are enormous. They are bitter, they are ruthless. The wicked men and their factions who have launched their peoples on the path of war and conquest know that they will be called to terrible account if they cannot beat down by force of arms the peoples they have assailed. They will stop at nothing. They have a vast accumulation of war weapons of all kinds. They have highly trained,disciplined armies, navies, and air services. They have plans and designs which have long been tried and matured. They will stop at nothing that violence or treachery can suggest.

It is quite true that, on our side, our resources in man-power and materials are far greater than theirs. But only a portion of your resources is as yet mobilised and developed, and we both of us have much to learn in the cruel art of war. We have therefore, without doubt, a time of tribulation before us. In this time some ground will be lost which it will be hard and costly to regain. Many disappointments and unpleasant surprises await us.

Many of them will afflict us before the full marshalling of our latent and total power can be accomplished. For the best part of twenty years the youth of Britain and America have been taught that war is evil, which is true, and that it would never come again, which has been proved false. For the best part of twenty years the youth of Germany, Japan and Italy have been taught that aggressive war is the noblest duty of the citizen, and that it should be begun as soon as the necessary weapons and organisation had been made. We have performed the duties and tasks of peace. They have plotted and planned for war. This, naturally, has placed us in Britain and now places you in the United States at a disadvantage, which only time, courage and strenuous, untiring exertions can correct.

We have indeed to be thankful that so much time has been granted to us. If Germany had tried to invade the British Isles after the French collapse in June 1940, and if Japan had declared war on the British Empire and the United States at about the same date, no one could say what disasters and agonies might not have been our lot. But now at the end of December 1941, our transformation form easy-going peace to total war efficiency has made very great progress. The broad flow of munitions in Great Britain has already begun. Immense strides have been made in the conversion of American industry to military purposes, and now that the United States are at war it is possible for orders to be given every day which a year or eighteen months hence will produce results in war power beyond anything that has yet been seen or foreseen in the dictator States. Provided that every effort is made, that nothing is kept back, that the whole man-power, brain power, virility, valour and civic virtue of the English-speaking world with all its galaxy of loyal, friendly, associated communities and States - provided all that is bent unremittingly to the simple and supreme task, I think it would be reasonable to hope that the end of 1942 will see us quite definitely in a better position than we are now, and that the year 1943 will enable us to assume the initiative upon an ample scale.

Some people may be startled or momentarily depressed when, like your President, I speak of a long and hard war. But our peoples would rather know the truth, sombre though it be. And after all, when we are doing the noblest work in the world, not only defending our hearths and homes but the cause of freedom in other lands, the question of whether deliverance comes in 1942, 1943 or 1944 falls into its proper place in the grand proportions of human history. Sure I am that this day - now we are the masters of our fate; that the task which has been set us is not above our strength; that its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable will-power, salvation will not be denied us. In the words of the Psalmist, 'He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord.' Not all the tidings will be evil.

On the contrary, mighty strokes of war have already been dealt against the enemy; the glorious defence of their native soil by the Russian armies and people have inflicted wounds upon the Nazi tyranny and system which have bitten deep, and will fester and inflame not only in the Nazi body but in the Nazi mind The boastful Mussolini has crumbled already. He is now but a lackey and serf, the merest utensil of his master's will. He has inflicted great suffering and wrong upon his own industrious people. He has been stripped of his African empire, Abyssinia has been liberated. Our armies in the East, which so weak and ill-equipped at the moment of French desertion, now control all the regions from Teheran to Benghazi, and from Aleppo and Cyprus to the sources of the Nile.

For many months we devoted ourselves to preparing to take the offensive in Libya. The very considerable battle, which has been proceeding for the last six weeks in the desert, has been) fiercely fought on both sides. Owing to the difficulties of supply on the desert flanks, we were never able to bring numerically equal forces to bear upon the enemy. Therefore, we had to rely upon a superiority in the numbers and quality of tanks and aircraft, British and American. Aided by these, for the first time, we have fought the enemy with equal weapons. For the first time we have made the Hun feel the sharp edge of those tools with which he had enslaved Europe. The armed forces of enemy in Cyrenaica amounted to about 150,000, of whom out one-third were Germans. General Auchinleck set out to destroy totally that armed force. I have every reason to believe that his aim will be fully accomplished. I am glad to be able to place before you, members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, at this moment when you are entering the war, proof that with proper weapons and proper organisation we are able to beat the life out of the savage Nazi. What Hitler is engaging in Libya is only a sample and foretaste of what we must he him and his accomplices, wherever this war shall lead us, in every quarter of the globe.

There are good tidings also from blue water. The life-line of supplies which joins our two nations across the ocean, without which all might fail, is flowing steadily and freely in spite of all enemy can do. It is a fact that the British Empire, which they thought eighteen months ago was broken and ruined, is now incomparably stronger, and is growing stronger with every month. Lastly, if you will forgive me for saying it, to me the best tidings of all is that the United States, united as never before, have drawn the sword for freedom and cast away the scabbard. All these tremendous facts have led the subjugated peoples of Europe to lift up their heads again in hope. They have put aside ever the shameful temptation of resigning themselves to the conqueror's will. Hope has returned to the hearts of scores of millions of men and women, and with that hope there burns the flame of anger against the brutal, corrupt invader, and still more fiercely burns the fires of hatred and contempt for the squalid Quislings whom he has suborned. In a dozen famous ancient States now prostrate under the Nazi yoke, the masses of the people of all classes and creeds await the hour of liberation, when they too will be able once again to play their part and strike their blows like men. That hour will strike, and its solemn peal will proclaim that the night is past and that the dawn has come.

The onslaught upon us so long and so secretly planned by Japan has presented both our countries with grievous problems for which we could not be fully prepared. If people ask me - as they have a right to ask me in England - why is it that you have not got ample equipment of modern aircraft and Army weapons of all kinds in Malaya and in the East Indies, I can only point to the victories General Auchinleck has gained in the Libyan campaign. Had we diverted and dispersed our gradually growing resources between Libya and Malaya, we should have been found wanting in both theatres. If the United States have been found at a disadvantage at various points in the Pacific Ocean, we know well that it is to no small extent because of the aid you have been giving us in munitions for the defence of the British Isles and for the Libyan campaign, and, above all, because of your help in the battle of the Atlantic, upon which all depends, and which has in consequence been successfully and prosperously maintained. Of course it would have been much better, I freely admit, if we had enough resources of all kinds to be at full strength at all threatened points; but considering how slowly an reluctantly we brought ourselves to large-scale preparations, and how long such preparations take, we had no right to expect to be in such a fortunate position.

The choice of how to dispose of our hitherto limited resources had to be made by Britain in time of war and by the United States in time of peace; and I believe that history will pronounce that upon the whole - and it is upon the whole that these matters must be judged - the choice made was right. Now that we are together, now that we are linked in a righteous comradeship of arms, now that our two considerable nations each in perfect unity, have joined all their life energies in a common resolve, a new scene opens upon which a steady light will glow and brighten.

Many people have been astonished that Japan should in a single day have plunged into war against the United States and the British Empire. We all wonder why, if this dark design, with all its laborious and intricate preparations, had been so long filling their secret minds, they did not choose our moment of weakness eighteen months ago. Viewed quite dispassionately, in spite of the losses we have suffered and the further punishment we shall have to take, it certainly appears to be an irrational act. It is, of course, only prudent to assume that they have made very careful calculations and think they see their way through. Nevertheless, there may be another explanation. We know that for many years past the policy of Japan has been dominated by secret societies of subalterns and junior officers of the Army and Navy, who have enforced their will upon successive Japanese Cabinets and Parliaments by the assassination of any Japanese statesman who opposed, or who did not sufficiently further, their aggressive policy. It may be that these societies, dazzled and dizzy with their own schemes of aggression and the prospect of early victories, have forced their country against its better judgment into war. They have certainly embarked upon a very considerable undertaking. For after the outrages they have committed upon us at Pearl Harbour, in the Pacific Islands, in the Philippines, in Malaya, and in the Dutch East Indies, they must now know that the stakes for which they have decided to play are mortal.

When we consider the resources of the United States and the British Empire compared to those of Japan, when we remember those of China, which has so long and valiantly withstood invasion and when also we observe the Russian menace which hangs over Japan, it becomes still more difficult to reconcile Japanese action with prudence or even with sanity. What kind of a people do they think we are? Is it possible they do not realise that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget? Members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives, I turn for one moment more from the turmoil and convulsions of the present to the broader basis of the future. Here we are together facing a group of mighty foes who seek our ruin; here we are together defending all that to free men is dear. Twice in a single generation the catastrophe of world war has fallen upon us; twice in our lifetime has the long arm of fate reached across the ocean to bring the United States into the forefront of the battle. If we had kept together after the last War, if we had taken common measures for our safety, this renewal of the curse need never have fallen upon us.

Do we not owe it to ourselves, to our children, to mankind tormented, to make sure that these catastrophes shall not engulf us for the third time? It has been proved that pestilence may break out in the Old World, which carry their destructive ravages into the New World, from which, once they are afoot, the New World cannot by any means escape. Duty and prudence alike command first that the germ-centres of hatred and revenge should be constantly and vigilantly surveyed and treated in good time, and, secondly, that an adequate organisation should be set up to make sure that the pestilence can be controlled at its earliest beginnings before it spreads and rages throughout the entire earth.

Five or six years ago it would have been easy, without shedding a drop of blood, for the United States and Great Britain to have insisted on fulfilment of the disarmament clauses of the treaties which Germany signed after the Great War; that also would have been the opportunity for assuring to German those raw materials which we declared in the Atlantic Charter should not be denied to any nation, victor or vanquished. That chance has passed. It is gone. Prodigious hammer-strokes have been needed to bring us together again, or if you will allow me to use other language, I will say that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honour to be the faithful servants. It is not given to us to peer into the mysteries of the future. Still, I avow my hope and faith, sure and inviolate, that in the days to come the British and American peoples will for their own safety and for the good of all walk together side by side in majesty, in justice and in  peace.

Sir Winston Churchill Addresses A Joint Session Of Congress on December 26, 1941

 

Capitalism Without Labor: Myths about Politics, The Global Economy and The Future of Democracy by Ulrich Beck Beck

[Marge, Bart, and Lisa go to their local "Bookaccino" superbookstore.]

LISA: I'm going up to the fourth floor, where the books are!
BART: I'm going to taunt the Ph.Ds!

[Bart approaches the three workers at the espresso bar, all of whom wear glasses and bored expressions.]

BART: Hey guys! I heard a new assistant professorship just opened up!

[Ph.D'd baristas gasp and lean forward eagerly.]

BART: Yes, that's right. At the University of ... PSYCH!


Diatribe of a Mad Housewife




 

What are you? At a dinner party (in a private bungalow, served leg of lamb Tuscan style, conversation tone: ironic) this question is not answered by naming one's hobby ("pornographer"), sign of the zodiac ("Aries") or, as was usual up until now, one's profession, but rather by stating one's career as an unemployed person. Even the unemploy­ment office no longer knows class distinctions.

The members of the „achievement elite" (as Germany's Free Democratic Party, the FDP, calls it) try their best to take the absurdities and humiliations of the job search iro­nically. A teacher entertains her listeners with the story of how the unemployment office suggested she take part in the very same "How to Write a Cover Letter" course, which she herself taught only a short time ago. A biologist with years of research experience triggers tears of laughter by mimicking the language mistakes and methodical blun­ders of the personnel manager who interviewed him. Then comes the punch line of the story: the biologist is rejected because of overqualification.

For a long time now, job insecurity has not only been a "lower class" problem. It has become a sign of the times. The “job for life" is threatened with extinction. No one wants to believe this also means the demise of a value system, of a society centred around gainful employment. Capitalism is extinguishing labour. Unemployment is no longer a marginal fate; it affects potentially everyone, as well as the democratic way of life. Global capitalism is casting aside its responsibility to employment and demo­cracy, while undermining its own legitimacy. Before a new Marx wakes the western world, long overdue ideas and models need to be translated into a new contract with so­ciety. The future of democracy needs to be re-legitimated above and beyond the labour society.

For example in Britain, one of the great labour nations, only a third of the work force, in the traditional sense, is fully employed (in Germany it is still over 60 per cent). Twenty years ago it was over 80 per cent in both countries. What is considered a cure - a flexible job market - has only treated the symptoms of unemployment rather than the disease itself. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to grow, along with the new statistically deceptive part-time positions, lack of job security and the silent labour reserves. In other words, the volume of labour is rapidly disappear­ing. We are heading towards a capitalism without labour in all post-industrial countries of the world.

Three myths hinder public debate from deciphering this situation. First, there is the obscurity myth, that everything is much too complicated anyway; second is the service myth, that the pending upswing will save the labour society and third is the cost myth, that if we drastically cut labour costs, the problem will simply vanish.

That everything is connected to everything else (if even tenuously) and is, because of this, obscure, is surely appli­cable to developments on the job market under pressure from globalisation. This includes secular trends, as demon­strated in Meinhard Miegel's international comparative studies, presented to the Commission for Future Issues of Bavaria and Saxony at the last conference in Dresden. According to his study, the labour factor has been con­tinually upgraded over generations. In the middle of the 70's a turning point occured. Since then, a decrease in jobs can be observed everywhere, either directly through unemployment (like in Germany) or indirectly through the exponential growth of "colourful forms of employment" (like in the United States and Britain). The demand for labour is sinking, while the supply of labour is rising (also through globalisation). Both indicators for the increasing loss of gainful employment - unemployment and under­employment - are alarmingly high.

The problem is no longer the distribution of jobs, but the distribution of joblessness, which is disguised by the new hybrids of unemployment and employment. Together they are officially catagorised as "(full-time) employment" (limited duration, trivial, part-time, etc.). This is especially true of those would-be job paradises in the US and Britain, where those in the grey zone between work and no-work must often be content with starvation wages. The grey zone has constituted the majority for a long time now. Thus, many are deceiving themselves. With each crisis the soup of the labor community is diluted even further.

A large, growing section of the population has only inse­cure "joblets," offering no secured (long-term) livelihood. Politicians, institutions and we ourselves think in the ficti­tious conceptual world of full employment. Even building and loan associations and insurance agencies make deci­sions based on the assumption that people who are em­ployed have a steady income. This stereotype fails to account for the rapidly spreading "neither/nor" category, neither unemployed nor a steady income.

Mothers give up their jobs for their children. However, the three-phase model they follow no longer exists. The third phase - re-entry into the work force after the children have left home - presupposes the illusion of full-time employ­ment. We complain about "mass unemployment," there­by presuming life-long, full-day work until retirement is the natural state of a grown person. Even former East Ger­many was, in this emphatic sense, a labour society. Now one must speak of widespread unemployment in the new German states.

Many believe, hope and pray that the service society will save us 

from the evil dragon of unemployment. This is the service myth. Claims and counterclaims still have to stand the test of time. Surely new jobs will be created. However, for the time being - as the sociologist Wolfgang Bonfr shows - just the opposite will occur. The traditionally sta­ble employment areas in the service sector will fall victim to an incipient wave of automation. For example, tele­banking will lead to the closing of branch offices in the banking industry; the German Telekom wants to save some 60,000 jobs by offering new services; entire professions (e.g. typists) may disappear.

Even if new jobs are created, they can easily be situated anywhere, thanks to digital technology. Many companies - most recently American Express - are setting up entire administrative departments in countries with lower labour costs (in this case: southern India).

Actually, contrary to the prophets of information society, who predicted a surplus of high-paying jobs even for peo­ple with a basic education, the sobering truth is even the large number of jobs in data processing will become poor­ly paid routine occupations. The US Secretary of Labour Robert Reich writes, that the rank and file of the informa­tion economy are the hordes of backroom data processors sitting at computer terminals connected to databanks worldwide.

Nevertheless, the key illusion in this continuing debate is the cost myth. A growing number of people are infected by the often militant belief that only a radical reduction of wages and other labour costs can lead out of unemploy­ment. Here the guiding light is the "American Way.” However, if one compares the US to Germany, one sees that the American "employment wonder" has a flip side. Highly qualified, steady, well-paid jobs in the US are crea­ted at a rate of 2.6 per cent. That's as often as in the top- wage country of Germany (OECD statistic from April 1996). The difference lies in the increase of unskilled, poorly paid jobs. Germany still (!) sees it as a problem that people, who work during the day for - let's say - seven marks an hour, sleep in cardboard boxes at night. A labour productivity comparison also breaks the spell of the American "solu­tion." In the last 20 years, labour productivity in the US has increased by only 25 per cent, in Germany, on the other hand, by 100 per cent. "How do the Germans do it?" asked an American colleague recently. "You work the least and produce the most."

This is a prime example of the new productivity law of global capitalism in the information age. Increasing num­bers of poorly skilled, globally interchangeable workers can supply more and more services. Economic growth no longer reduces unemployment, but rather the opposite, jobs. It thus becomes jobless growth.

But do not fool yourself: the "owner-only capitalism" aimed at nothing but profit, that shuts out employees, the (social) state and democracy, also revokes its own legiti­macy. While the profit margins of global companies are expanding, they are depriving the expensive countries of both jobs and their tax base and are burdening others with the costs of unemployment and the price of civilisation. The two chronically poor - public and private sector em­ployees - are supposed to finance what the rich are also enjoying: the "luxury" of a second modern age: highly developed schools and universities, a functioning transpor­tation system, the preservation of the countryside, safe streets and a colourful urban life.

When global capitalism in the developed countries dis­solves, the ethical core of values in the labour society, a historical alliance between capitalism, the social state and democracy will be shattered. Democracy in Europe and the US came into the world as a "labour democray" - to the extent that democracy is based on participation of la­bour. A citizen must earn his or her money in one way or another in order to bring the rights of political freedom to life. Gainful employment has continually legitimated not only private but also public life. Therefore, it is not just about a million unemployed workers. It is also not just about the social state. Or the prevention of poverty. Or the ability to achieve justice. It is about all of us. It is about political liberty and democracy in Europe.

The West's linking of capitalism to political, social and eco­nomic basic rights is not simply a "charitable social act" that can be dispensed with when times get rough. Socially padded capitalism is more of a response to fascist experi­ences and the challenges presented by communism.

It is an act of applied Enlightenment, This rests on the be­lief that only people who have a place to live and a steady job, and therefore have a material future, are or will be­come citizens that will make democracy their own and will bring it to life. The simple truth is: without material secur­ity there is no political liberty; therefore no democracy. New and old totalitarian regimes and ideologies thus be­come a threat to everyone.

The new historically inexperienced pseudo-Free Democrats or the Free pseudo-Democrats need to recognise that the market fundamentalism they worship is a form of demo- > cratic illiteracy. The market does not legitimate itself. This economic form can only survive in an interplay between material security, social rights and democracy. Those who place their faith only in the market will destroy democracy and this economic form as well.

No one questions capitalism today. Who would dare to? The only powerful opponent to capitalism is the "profit- only-oriented capitalism" itself. What is bad news on the job market is good news on Wall Street. The calculation behind this is simple. When labour costs fall, profits rise. Moreover, the contradictions presented by "jobless capital­ism" are becoming obvious. Managers from multinational corporations are moving their administrations to southern Italy, but they are sending their children to top European universities.

It never occurs to them to move to where they are transferring jobs and to where they pay low taxes. They themselves are taking advantage of the expensive political, social and civil rights, white torpedoing the public financial base for these very things. They go to the theatre. They enjoy well taken care of nature and landscape. They romp around in the relatively violence- and crime-free cities of Europe. But at the same time, through their “ego- economy" and profit-oriented policies, they are contribut­ing fundamentally to the destruction of this European way of life. May one ask where they or their children want to live when the countries and democracies of Europe can no longer be financed?

It is not the fact that capitalism is producing more with less labour that robs capitalism of its legitmacy; rather, it is the fact that capitalism is blocking the initiative to form a new contract with society. Whoever thinks about unemploy­ment today must not get confused by the old (German) catch phrases about the "secondary job market," the "part-time offensive," the so-called "versicherungsfrem- den Leistungen" (diverting taxes collected for unemploy­ment or social security to pay for other things) or about sick pay.

Instead one must ask: how is democracy possible without the security the labour society offers? What ap­pears as a decline and end needs to be turned into a period for new ideas and models that prepare the state, the eco­nomy and society for the 21st century.

In the antiquated world of the industrial society, two “em­ployers" dominated: capital and state. In the future, both of these will chronically fail in this function. Capitalism cre­ates unemployment and will become more and more unem­ployed itself. The word “empty" is, when applied to the public treasuries, actually a blasphemous understatement.

One can complain about it, or one can form a new center of activity and identification that revitalises the democratic way of life: through "public work." If "public" is the skill of drawing the stranger into a long-term discussion about his or her own affairs, then "public work" is the skill of turning these words into actions. What does this mean? Active compassion, for example, by those who call them­selves the "exhaust apes," "eco-brooms" or the "dead cans."

But it is not just their fear of destruction and decay that urges them on; it is more their anger about the fact that most people do not think about what they do. This active opposition to indifference has many objectives and faces: work with the elderly and the handicapped, the homeless and AIDS patients, illiterates and the excluded, halfway houses for women, Greenpeace, Amnesty Inter­national, etc. In this sense, "public work" combines politics, care for others and everyday cooperation.

There is also constructive criticism: many lawyers, tax con­sultants, doctors, managers, administrators, etc. want to apply their professional expertise to new areas - to influ­ence public opinion and legislation, to develop economic plans for self-help groups, to inform about tax flight, to consult debtors, to expose hidden dangers, etc. Why not reward civil resistance with prizes and distinctions? (How­ever, one should entrust citizens with the awarding.)

Active democracy is yet another form of "public work." Citizen participation, decentralisation - a small cultural revolution has broken out within many city and township administrations. It is promising not only more economic efficiency but also additional democracy. "Only branch par­liaments are being created by this type of citizen activity," grumbles a councilman.

This means: we must invest in the civil society. We must delegate it power and authority in every sense: technolo­gical (media), economic (basic financing) and educational (certificates that are accepted on the job market).

How do the values and goals of the "labour society" and those of a "socially organised civil society" relate to one another? Not in the sense of "either/or" but rather "as well as.” Decisive for the future may well be the inter­mixing of formal work and self-determined voluntary work, the dismantling of legal and mobility barriers between both sectors and the creation of possiblities to opt out or to transfer (at yearly, weekly or monthly intervals).

This would bring two different results: first, the monopoly would be broken that sees only gainful employment as a purposeful and acceptable public task. Second, public work would create new political fields of action and identity cen­ters within a fragmented society and at the same time would help prevent further fragmentation. The (material and cultural) rudiments for a "solidarity of individuals", like this country has historically never known, would evolve. And this in a country where not long ago one could hear the slogan “You are nothing, your nation (your class) is everything!".

This model is not about replacing paid work with unpaid work, as is suggested again and again. Those types of mo­dels remain under the spell of the labour society. That is not thought through well: that which shall take the place of work is work (housework, family, etc.).

There is, however, one important distinction, which Hannah Arendt raised years ago. She compares work, whose goals and products leave no traces behind because they are used up in everyday consumption, to actions that bring history to mind and that, in cooperation with others, bring about consciousness and political institutions. Hence, the age of disintegration must - as Alexis de Tocqueville no­ticed more than 150 years ago - be combated not through less, but rather through more political liberties. Political liberties in a post-traditional society bring about social con­sciousness and unity. Four arguments should sharpen these thoughts that appear devastatingly beautiful at first glance and help bring them in sync with reality.

First: is not this explanation already frustrated by the egoism to which this society has succumbed? Second, who is to pay for this? Third, is this at all possible under the dictates of a global economy? Fourth, does not „creative unemployment" (Ivan lllich) make one unhappy? Is not human identity ultimately shattered by the loss of gainful employment?

And what about the much-bemoaned "ego society?" The American sociologist Robert Wuthnow shows, that with­out voluntary commitment to others, all modern societies would collapse immediately. Eighty million Americans - 45 per cent of those over 18 years of age - do over five hours of volunteer work week for week. The monetary value of these services amounts to approximately 150 bil­lion dollars a year.

At the same time, this study show that 75 per cent of the American population rank solidarity, readiness to help and an interest in public welfare at the same prominent level as self-realisation, professional success and the expansion of personal freedoms. An “ego society" requires that those things which should be united be mutually exclusive: self- realisation and being there for others.

Only those who falsely equate commitment with member­ship in organisations can believe that this is any different in Germany. While the youth of today is staying away from the church, political parties, unions and associations (the average age of the members of the British Conserva­tive Party is over 60 years of age), various initiatives are experiencing a surge in popularity.

The same teenagers that avoid the boredom of collective organisations are active in saving the damaged environment (over 80 per cent). 73 per cent see homelessness as a main problem and want to do something about it; 71 per cent demand more rights for the handicapped, 71 per cent have a positive attitude towards feminism and believe it is an important issue for both men and women.

The "loss of values and the indifference of today's youth" - which, by the way, even Plato denounced - is motivated by the "commitment blockade." Rights are granted to young people, but as soon as they go to apply them, these rights are cut back. Increasingly, the government is clamping down on citizen action groups. Power is not really being delegated. This is what is meant by "commitment block­ade:" many are not active because they have experienced “that nothing comes of it.

Who should finance the investment in "social capital" in an active society? In Germany, we have over four billion German" marks in the accounts of private households - very unevenly distributed. Ten per cent of the households own a little less than 49 per cent of private capital, 40 per cent of households another 49 per cent, compared to 50 per cent of households with only a little over 2.4 per cent of private capital.

Entrepreneurs have discovered the key to wealth. The new magic formula says: capitalism without labour plus capital­ism without taxes. The returns from the profit tax for cor­porations dropped by 18.6 per cent from 1989 to 1993. The share of this tax in total government tax revenue was almost half of that (from 6.4 to 3.7 per cent), while at the same time, profits increased by more than 10 per cent. This is where the new globalisation power game comes into play. Many entrepreneurs are becoming virtual tax payers.

Capital is globally mobile. Countries, on the other hand, are bound territorially. Because the same products, which are broken down into different production phases, are manufactured in different countries and on different con­tinents, localising profits is becoming more dubious and at the same time opens up chances for corporate strategies to minimise tax payments.

The internationalisation of production offers businesses two strategic advantages: a global competition between expensive and cheap labour is created and a country's tax regulations and tax inspectors can be used against one another and circumvented. With this new power that businesses have, one sees the successful transfer of the laws of free-enterprise to the political sector.

In truth, the situation is very tricky. The claims of a number of commu­nal services (expensive universities, hospitals, transportation systems, the administration of justice, research funds) is no longer bound to the place of taxation. Thus many busines­ses are able to minimise their tax burden while at the same time moving to the countries that offer the best infrastruc­ture.

The places of investment, production, tax collection and living can be separated from one another. Many businesses are taking advantage of the low tax rates in poorer coun­tries and are enjoying the high stardard of living in the richer countries. They pay taxes where it is cheapest and they live where it is most beautiful. They ride on the coat­tails of expensive infrastructure services.

There is considerable potential for social conflict in this.

On the one hand, contrasts between virtual and actual tax payers arise (people who are still employed, small busines­ses who do not have this new mobility at their disposal and are within reach of the conventional tax authorities). These are the "dumb ones," the global losers.

On the other hand, the gladiators of economic growth, that are wooed by politicians, undermine the authority of the state by claiming its services but withholding taxes from it. The new virtuosi of virtual taxes undermine in a

legal but illigitimate way public welfare, politics and the state. The neoliberal political situation that swears by the market resembles, in this respect, the suicidal irony of an efficiency expert that is simultaneously preparing for and executing his own discharge.

There is only one consequence in this: the taboo must be removed from this geyser of social injustice and, moreover, in the very own interests of politics itself, it needs to be­come a part of public debate. The globalisation winners must be made to commit to public welfare once again. In many respects, the system of social welfare needs to be reformed. The conclusion from this means, paradoxically: not less, but more money, but this money must be correct­ly invested and distributed! For investments in public work this means: less produces more. Society begins to flourish; public wealth increases.

Clearly, we need a new definition for "wealth." This defi­nition must include, among other things, social sharing, political liberty, etc., because a society whose economy is flourishing, but for that reason causes people to lose their jobs and isolates them, is not a "rich" society; rather, it is merely a society left over for the rich.

And now comes the crux of the matter: who should pay for this? Consider four examples.

•  The tax relief model: those active in public work get to pay (considerably) less taxes (similar to how one, today, can deduct charitable contributions or how non-profit associations receive an exemption from taxes). Objection: this model assumes that volunteers have a regular job. Those who earn well anyway would have the opportunity to make their lives more diverse through public action.

•  A tax-financed fundamental safeguard: in this case, those who are active in self-determined voluntary work would receive a kind of "public grant" (like that which is already being attempted in Saxony).

"The choice between unemployment and participation in the civil society" model: according to which, the unem­ployed would have a new option in the future. They could decide if they want to remain unemployed or if they want to become active in a self-determined voluntary social or­ganisation.

This model offers surprises. If thought through, it could lead to the abolishment of unemployment: Rather than creating new (part-time) work, a self-determined, so­cially organised society would not only come to life, but would become a way of life.

  

• If the "American model" ends up as a combination be­tween full employment and the working poor, than the "German (European) model" could aim at a combination of gainful employment and a monetarily rewarded parti­cipation in civil society. Those who are active in social ser­vice are no longer "available on the job market" and in this sense are no longer unemployed. They are active citi­zens that are commited to human welfare and receive a fundamental safeguard (fora limited period of time).

•  "The tax-financed citizen money for everyone" model; the amount of money will have to be disputed over. Many are afraid that this kind of fundamental safeguard would promote the exclusion of already threatened groups - wom­en, the poor, the handicapped - from employment and society. Therefore it would be very important not to pay citizen money unconditionally, but rather to couple it with recipients' active participation in an inclusive society.

Can a single country alone begin with such a fundamental reform? If the basic diagnosis stated here is correct - that capitalism causes unemployment and will become unem­ployed itself - than the issue is about a global challenge that all highly developed societies will be facing sooner or later. However, in the long run, the country that finds a practical solution to this problem first, and hence confronts the threat to democracy, will, in every respect (also eco­nomically) be one step ahead.

After all, as far as the alleged identity monoply of gainful employment is concerned, studies today are already showing a fundamental change in attitude: more and more people are looking for both, to be active in and outside of work. Without a doubt, this can generate identity and social solidarity if the value of social service is upgraded socially, rewarded and made compatible with gainful em­ployment.

This outlined scenario comes down to a final plea: the in­visible practice of social self-help and political, self-deter­mined social organisation must be made visible. It needs to receive economic, organisational and political weight. This will only be possible if we invest in civil society and in the process of democratising democracy. What we need is a citizen/government alliance for civil society and, if need be, against labour and capital. But this alliance should in­clude everybody to whom democracy is dear.

1996