Whether it’s the cost of living crisis or the climate crisis – our situation is desperate. Working on the desirable world of tomorrow in the here and now means, not least, democratizing the capitalist economy. One promising method for doing this is socialization, which is currently being promoted by grassroots movements in areas as diverse as housing, energy, and transportation. Vincent Janz, one of their many initiators in Germany, outlines the potential of socialization.
*
The Deutsche Wohnen & Co. Enteignen (DWE) referendum in Berlin recently celebrated its third anniversary. At that time, 59 percent of the eligible voters in Berlin – over one million people – voted in favor of expropriating the large real estate companies that own over 3,000 apartments in the German capital. According to Article 15 of the Basic Law, the housing stock of these twelve housing companies would be socialized and transferred to a democratic public institution. This new institution would suddenly become the largest real estate manager in Berlin and would be tasked with managing the apartments in a democratic and sustainable manner for the public good.
“No lesser means”
Since the referendum, however, Berlin’s politicians have been delaying the implementation of the decision with all possible means and impressive audacity. After the referendum, the then SPD-led government convened a commission of experts to examine whether such a socialization could be implemented at all. It came to a clear conclusion: not only would the expropriation of real estate giants like Deutsche Wohnen and the socialization of its housing stock be legally feasible and socially just. The Commission also stated that “there is currently no less restrictive measure that would have a clearly equivalent effect to the envisaged project, that would be less restrictive of the fundamental rights concerned – and that would not impose a greater burden on the general public than the socialization proposed by the initiative.” Given this clarity, the delay in implementation can only be attributed to a lack of political will and the defense of the interests of the real estate lobby.
However, the housing market continues to evolve rapidly. In the last year alone, asking rents in Berlin have increased by 26.7 percent. What’s more, many apartments are currently losing their social housing status, leading to further dramatic rent increases and a wave of owner-occupier evictions. A year and a half ago, however, the campaign for socialization announced the next step: a second referendum. This time, however, it will be a referendum on legislation and not, as was the case with the first referendum, a referendum on decisions. If this second referendum is successful, it would enter into force immediately and be constitutionally binding. Socialization would then be law. This would be a precedent, since Article 15 of the Basic Law has never been used before.
The hopeful vision of socialization is making waves beyond the DWE. More importantly, more and more courageous activists are putting property relations at the center of their political work. Time and again, they scandalize the catastrophic private power of disposal over the means of production. Socialization is a structural response to the exploitation of labor, the destruction of the climate, and the downsizing of essential economic sectors. However, the core model of socialization in terms of democratizing the autocratic structures of private corporations is not a simple template in this sense. While DWE has outlined an excellent model for the housing sector in Berlin with its sophisticated concept of a democratic ‘public law institution’ and a subsidiary council principle, the energy sector is more complex. There, a variety of ownership models would be necessary, always democratic, but partly centralized and partly decentralized to cope with the complexity of the energy system.
Overcoming the diffusity of socialization
Of course, the fact that Article 15 of the Basic Law has never been used is a challenge. But it is also an opportunity. The ambivalence of the term can lead to the concept being misunderstood or rejected in social discourse. However, the fact that socialization entails a variety of democratic forms of ownership and different implementation strategies, depending on the context, should be seen as a strength. In order to resolve the diffusity of socialization, I would like to identify three pillars that must be in place for us to be able to speak of socialization. These three pillars, which were formulated by the social scientist and DWE activist Jenny Stupka and to which we have been referring ever since, are: first, the transformation of property relations from private to collective ownership; second, the democratization of collective ownership; and third, the orientation towards the common good and needs.
With regard to the change in ownership, the first pillar means the transformation of private property into forms of common property. In other words, expropriation. Wherever there is talk of socialization, there is a positive vision of a new structure that places justice, democracy and the common good at the center of its work, largely independent of capital and state interests. Socialization therefore presupposes a takeover of the resources that are currently appropriated and exploited by a few.
The second pillar is democratization and refers to the change in decision-making structures from market mechanisms or state authority to democratic structures. The process of expropriation alone is explicitly not enough to achieve sustainable socialization. In its current form, the state does not act in the interests of the many, but rather in the service of Germany’s competitiveness as a ‘business location’ and will therefore continue to privatize state property as soon as a crisis justifies this step. Since these crises are foreseeable, even pre-programmed, in capitalism, mere nationalization is not sustainable.
The third pillar describes the orientation towards the common good and needs. It represents the reorientation of management purposes away from profit and capital market orientation towards needs-oriented management. Solidary cooperation replaces competition. Defining and representing a common good consisting of individual interests is one of the most exciting and difficult democratic processes. What is certain, however, is that an economy oriented toward the common good must guarantee the provision of affordable housing, the protection of nature, and accessible health care for all. The goal of a common good economy is public luxury.
To speak of socialization, all three criteria must be met. It is true that the fulfillment of one or two of the criteria is already a sign of progressive measures for a future-oriented economic policy – such as remunicipalization and cooperatives. But this should not be called socialization. In terms of the discourse around this term, it should be used with caution. Only then can it unite us and develop its potential.
We need a dual strategy
Even though the Left Party was able to win 8.8 percent in the federal elections and thus at least make such positions more acceptable, it has to be said that we face an enormous headwind at every step. This is hardly surprising, of course. Socialization strikes at the heart of the capitalist economy. The ruling class understands this and will therefore do everything in its power to water down the demands and, if necessary, break the law to sabotage a fair and democratic process. As long as we focus exclusively on socialization in accordance with Article 15 of the Basic Law, the chances of success remain slim.
Strategically, therefore, two strands can be identified, both of which must be pursued together in order to make socialization a success. The first strand seeks to establish socialization in law through state institutions and according to their rules. The debate takes place through the means of these very institutions: the Basic Law or the referendum. Even if it seems counterintuitive at first, in the long run this strand aims at disengagement from the state: By handing over the socialized infrastructures and means of production to a new form of democratic self-administration, in which representatives of the state can continue to exert influence, but in which their decision-making power is significantly limited in favor of users, consumers, and operators, the power of the state is reduced in the long term. However, such a strategy requires a high degree of mobilization, grassroots organization, and legal and technical expertise.
In addition to this active and noisy side of the strategy, the second strand aims to begin building a counter-power from below in the here and now. The main question here is how to organize a social base on the basis of common interests beyond campaign cycles. Every initiative needs such an organized base. Not only to enforce socialization against state resistance, but also to be able to fall back on organized structures and stable networks of relationships at any time. These become particularly relevant when it comes to the hypothetical implementation of socialization. Organized structures must already be in place in order to effectively take over the administration. However, we must also consider the fact that those we want to empower for socialization – all of us – do not know how to take on our new roles and responsibilities on their own. Here we need to focus on (further) training opportunities. Finally, this strand of the strategy aims to develop existing structures and see them as precursors.
Demanding socialization means using strategies and tactics that are new to many of us and that need to be learned and tested. However, we can already point to successes, such as the electoral success of the left in the recent federal elections. The door-to-door campaign, the focus on socio-economic problems and a clear stance against right-wing conservative tendencies led to considerable success. With these successes and the testing of new strategies and campaigns that can connect with the broader population, the potential of socialization can be fully realized. It is a political demand that everyone can rally behind; the promise of a future worth living for all; a program of concrete, material improvement for the many; a vision of a better tomorrow. Let’s start with it.