Ferenc Laczó: In your current guide in your political friendship titled Zurück zur Wirklichkeit (‘Again to actuality’) you strike me as polemicists who’re focused on mediation. Is that the way you see yourselves and one another?
Claus Leggewie: Dany has the picture of being the nice revolutionary, somebody who may have blown France aside – which, given the circumstances, would possibly even have been potential. And that he’s a rabble-rouser. Individuals at all times requested, ‘Why is he arguing a lot? Why is he shouting? Why is he so aggressive?’ In fact, he was and is probably the most conciliatory particular person I do know. He’s the one capable of settle disputes, saying, ‘Hear, be cheap. What the opposite aspect is saying could also be true.’ After which he turns to the others and says, ‘Hear, be cheap yourselves.’
Whilst a parliamentary group chief having to take care of a heterogeneous group of individuals, Dany repeatedly got here up with concepts for issues at precisely the suitable second, concepts that nobody else had considered. He would say issues like ‘Let’s do it utterly otherwise. We may method the difficulty this manner as an alternative.’
So, for me he’s the best consultant of a realpolitik with a powerful ethical compass. Realpolitik implies that we have now to make progress. We are able to’t simply wait till capitalism has been abolished or antisemitism disappears. That’s not going to occur in a single day, so the query is: what will we do within the meantime?
Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Claus and I got here to consider migration at nearly precisely the identical time – Claus as a professor who had taken an curiosity within the topic, I as a metropolis councillor liable for a division in Frankfurt. We developed an nearly equivalent place with out prior coordination – that we must always acknowledge that Germany is a rustic of immigration however with out sugarcoating the phenomenon.
From that time onward, he and I had the sensation that we had been pondering in the identical route on all types of points. Underlying all that was a shared concept of what trendy meliorism may very well be. That reformism means attempting to enhance society in a manner that understands that you simply want a majority of individuals to assist your initiatives.
CL: Politically, we may play a ‘no look cross,’ a cross into open area, like footballers, and know that the opposite would already be there or arrive there on the proper second. That’s how we talk with one another and we largely agree. We argue, too, in fact, however we nearly at all times find yourself with a parallel view. Political friendships like ours matter as a result of you possibly can method politics by establishing friend-enemy relationships, within the sense of Carl Schmitt, however it’s also possible to apply politics otherwise: we could have totally different opinions at occasions, but we are able to nonetheless deal with one another with kindness and respect.
One other level considerations the improbability of our friendship, which stems from the truth that we got here from utterly totally different social milieus. It solely grew to become clear to us whereas writing the guide that Franco-German reconciliation after 1945 was one thing like a political miracle – it’s one thing that simply shouldn’t ever have labored.
Each of us knew individuals who made Franco-German reconciliation potential, for instance the Frankfurt-born creator Alfred Grosser, whose Jewish household needed to flee Germany. Such folks may simply have remained enemies of the Germans for many years, however as an alternative they mentioned, ‘No, we wish Europe. We’ll construct one thing collectively. We glance ahead.’ Individuals like Grosser confirmed that even the deepest hostility might be overcome. The concept that folks can uncover one thing they share, and that that frequent floor is Europe, formed our whole political upbringing. This ‘miracle’ varieties the inspiration of our political friendship.
FL: How would you place yourselves on the left?
CL: We began out as autonomous activists and needed a distinct society. Communal dwelling. Different existence. However then got here the conclusion: social actions are just like the tides – there’s a excessive tide and there’s a low tide. From that got here one other perception: if actual change is in the end determined in parliaments, then we should have interaction in parliamentary politics. That was the primary main shift in our pondering.
However we additionally mentioned: if we’re coming into parliament, it’s to alter issues, and so we should be prepared to kind coalitions. That produced the primary main battle among the many Greens, between the ‘realos’ and the ‘fundis’.
Our first conclusion was that alliances with the Social Democrats had been needed. However hardly had we accepted that earlier than a few of us, together with me, started to assume: ‘There could come a time when cooperation with the Social Democrats is now not potential, so we even have to think about cooperation with the Christian Democrats.’ On the time, that was handled as lèse-majesté.
We by no means had any ideological enthusiasm for black-green politics. We merely mentioned that coalition with the CDU would possibly work beneath sure circumstances, if different choices fail. I got here from a CDU household; I knew higher than most individuals how conservative and reactionary that world may very well be.
We each see ourselves on the left, however ‘the left’ – and I say this with irony – is the place we’re, and never the place others inform us we belong. What’s leftwing about Jean-Luc Mélenchon? Nothing past his old school rhetoric. In different phrases, we belong to a left that doesn’t declare one thing to be leftwing just because the Bolsheviks, Marx, Mao, or whoever else as soon as mentioned so. We had been by no means a part of these sorts of ideological circles.
The decisive level for me is that we’re humanists. Many individuals on the left, particularly in our era, have a relatively misanthropic outlook. They preserve their distance from bizarre folks, who are supposed to be idiots, philistines, even assholes. Whereas we are saying: nothing human is alien to us. Errors, foolishness, nonsense: these are all a part of being human. If you wish to have interaction in politics, then it’s important to be basically pleasant in direction of folks.
DCB: I’d put it barely otherwise: I’d say we’re lifelike about human beings. Which means we imagine each human being is able to each the perfect and the very worst. That can also be why we’d by no means merely surrender on folks. I admit that I wrestle right now when folks inform me, ‘Not everybody who votes for the AfD is a fascist.’ I don’t know what these individuals are, however everybody who votes for the AfD accepts that migrants must be expelled… In different phrases, our humanism has its limits.
CL: On the left, we have now nearly at all times been within the minority. Whether or not the controversy was about pacifism, ecology or different points, we frequently discover ourselves taking positions that differ from the mainstream. Not as a result of we got down to provoke or shock. Relatively, based mostly on our shared values, we are saying ‘Right here you’re proper and there you’re mistaken.’ We get attacked loads for that. I personally don’t get pleasure from that, however it’s important to defend your place. Defending a minority place is extremely good coaching, because it allows you to assume freely.
We had been among the many few who by no means grew to become fixated on Russia, not like a lot of the German left – whether or not out of guilt about World Conflict II or as a result of Russia was nonetheless one way or the other considered the socialist promise. We at all times stood with the smaller japanese European international locations. My very own political formation was formed by Prague ’68 and later by the assault on Sarajevo within the Nineties. That basically distinguishes us.
Most individuals on the left place equality on the centre. They’re involved with taxes, redistribution. I’ve nothing in opposition to larger taxes on the super-rich – however as we write within the guide, our highest precept is freedom.
We additionally share a standard mental mentor: André Gorz. His personal life between totally different worlds – as somebody who was each Jewish and Catholic, an immigrant from fascist Austria, who imagined what Sartre known as a republic of freedom – was important. We each knew him properly. He, too, was nearly at all times within the minority.
FL: You grew up in a Europe that in lots of respects was conservative if not authoritarian. That modified dramatically within the Nineteen Seventies and Nineteen Eighties with the brand new social actions. Since 1989 we have now been dwelling in one other sort of democracy – a consultant democracy, one that’s deeply capitalistic, extremely bureaucratized and so forth. Have the hopes of emancipation you had in your youth been fulfilled?
DCB: Again then I seemed to Hannah Arendt and Max Horkheimer as my key witnesses and argued that anti-authoritarianism was the inspiration on which we stood. Looking back, I believe that the cultural revolution that started within the Nineteen Sixties has been profitable. One of the best instance is that even the far proper has feminine leaders; you possibly can even be overtly lesbian on the far proper. Many Christian Democrats at the moment are in same-sex marriages. That will have been unthinkable solely twenty or thirty years in the past. That doesn’t imply we stay in a great society; however we have now to acknowledge how profoundly issues have modified.
CL: The anti-authoritarianism that triumphed via the cultural revolution of the Nineteen Sixties gave rise to a right-libertarian mind-set that differs profoundly from the left-libertarian outlook we signify. The libertarian proper has no respect and no sense of humility earlier than the world, nature or the cosmos. None in anyway. A misunderstood type of anti-authoritarianism merely says ‘I can do no matter I would like. No one tells me what to do anymore.’
The identical applies to their critique of the state. Take into consideration the disruptive character of Trumpism, of Milei, of their want to dismantle if not destroy the state. They bear the mark of a misunderstood anti-authoritarian revolt. In the long run, what stays of conservatism is bare racism. Bare supremacism. I sensed this in an article I wrote for Die Zeit again in 1983. Already again then I used to be pondering that if everybody grew to become anti-authoritarian, there would now not be any shared ethical basis, no motive for something past merely saying: ‘I’m in opposition to it.’
That oppositional angle was one thing our era had in abundance – we had been in opposition to nearly the whole lot. That made sense on the time, as a result of many issues actually had been mistaken. In the present day it’s the proper that claims: ‘We merely need what the folks need.’ When it comes to its depth, the criticism of what’s known as ‘wokeism’ is remarkably just like how folks of our era criticized reactionary ideologies within the Nineteen Sixties and Nineteen Seventies. Solely the edges have modified – now we’re the institution. The foremost distinction is that right now’s proper libertarians are much more intently aligned with the bulk’s needs, even when these needs are dreadful.
DCB: It grew to become clear to us that we needed to rethink the position of the state and its perform, and to rethink ‘the folks’. What position ought to the state play in defending the overall curiosity, even in opposition to public opinion, when that opinion turns into intolerant? That’s the nice problem for these of us formed by the anti-authoritarianism of the Nineteen Sixties.
It means recognizing that illiberalism can, at sure historic moments, be embraced by massive components of the inhabitants. For a very long time, Viktor Orbán’s illiberalism loved real majority assist in Hungary. He didn’t impose it via power. Many individuals needed it.
For most individuals on the left, the state was merely an instrument of repression, a servant of capitalism, an confederate in promoting out society to multinational companies. I by no means agreed with that. For me, the state is an instrument for holding exactly the sorts of actions we’re witnessing right now. If the state fails, Nationwide Socialism turns into potential.
CL: Tolerance for ambiguity is, I believe, the decisive political wrestle right now. That doesn’t imply all positions are equally good. Fairly the other. On the college we see an astonishing hardening of attitudes and intolerance. We encounter a pseudo-left whose angle is profoundly authoritarian. Banning has grow to be its first intuition: in the event that they dislike one thing, it should disappear. They haven’t any tolerance for ambiguity.
DCB: If we signify something, it’s a rejection of fastened identities. That doesn’t imply denying that our personal cultural identities formed us. That will be absurd. For a very long time, I didn’t perceive what my Jewish id meant and the way vital it had been. We’re not denying the relevance of these issues. Now we have nothing in opposition to a way of self or perhaps a sense of ‘we’ – although I’d at all times place the ‘I’ first.
CL: The issue is that each the Democrats within the US and Europe’s liberal left have stopped speaking about pursuits. As an alternative, they discuss id. The left made an enormous mistake when it accepted the culturalization of political battle. That’s why each concern turns into one other Israel–Palestine – a query of buddy or enemy. Satirically, the suitable succeeded as a result of the left confirmed it how. The primary identitarians had been individuals who argued that id itself was the central battlefield of political wrestle.
We had been by no means old-style Marxists, nor neo-Marxists both. We by no means thought the capital–labour battle defined the whole lot. But the cleavage between capital and labour, wealthy and poor, between these on the high and people on the backside nonetheless exists. Globally, the battle could also be sharper than ever earlier than. Trumpism is the machine designed to push that battle to its logical conclusion. As somebody on the left, I’d subsequently primarily converse in regards to the rising divide between wealthy and poor.
FL: Might you say extra about your concept of cosmopolitan universalism?
CL: The actually common precept is human dignity. Human dignity is inviolable. That’s the best sentence within the German Fundamental Regulation and the nice achievement of post-Nazi Germany. It implies that in each battle, each political wrestle, each ideological confrontation, we must not ever lose sight of that precept – that’s what I meant earlier after I spoke about being basically humane.
However happily, in addition to human dignity, we even have human rights. Some weeks in the past, I used to be on the Worldwide Court docket of Justice in The Hague, a temple of the legislation. If that establishment had been to be deserted, one thing important can be misplaced. One factor I hope nonetheless to see is a tribunal for Putin in The Hague; he ought to stand trial for the crimes he has dedicated in opposition to humanity. Our shared humanity must be defended. For me, that’s the essence of universalism.
Cosmopolitanism means acknowledging that totally different societies have totally different histories, ranges of growth, totally different traditions and political cultures. It means extending tolerance for ambiguity to the worldwide stage. In different phrases, I’ve to just accept that politics is performed otherwise in Latin America than it’s in Europe. It additionally requires a real reckoning with colonialism, and never merely rhetorical gestures.
For me, the central ecological query isn’t whether or not nuclear energy is sweet or unhealthy, or whether or not we must always devour extra electrical energy or much less. The true concern is one thing way more basic: it’s about extending cosmopolitanism past humanity itself, to embody non-human beings inside our ethical and political horizon. Most individuals, together with folks on the left, discover that nearly incomprehensible. For them, ecology nonetheless implies that human beings stay on the centre and easily handle nature extra intelligently. If it will get too scorching, we’ll cool issues down. However that mind-set is over; that sort of anthropocentrism can’t be saved.
For the previous ten years I’ve devoted myself to selling what we name planetary pondering. The argument is that humanity is embedded inside a a lot bigger universe – human beings occupy solely an unimaginably tiny instantaneous within the historical past of the cosmos. We must lastly perceive that. Ecological politics ought to start by recognizing the interconnectedness of the whole lot with the whole lot else.
DCB: I’m extra of a conventional cosmopolitan. For me, The Hague is the concrete institutional achievement of post-1945 civilization. It represents the popularity of how inhuman human beings might be, and the try to answer that via legislation. It’s the logical continuation of the Nuremberg Trials.
After 1945, the world entered a brand new section. However in the USA, Black Individuals continued to be oppressed for many years. Likewise, right now we’d like a real reckoning with colonialism and slavery in all their dimensions. Slavery isn’t merely a problem for white societies. There was additionally an Arab slave commerce.
That’s one of many weaknesses of a lot postcolonial pondering, in my opinion. It assumes there was one enemy: white Europeans. In fact, European colonialism was central. However lowering the whole lot to a easy opposition between colonizer and colonized undermines cosmopolitan pondering.
FL: You argue that the European Union is misunderstood and defend a federalist mannequin that differs from what many individuals think about beneath that label – specifically a centralized superstate. In what sense does the EU stay a sensible utopia for you?
DCB: The standard understanding of European federalism emerged after 1945. It’s, the truth is, the other of centralization; its goal is to arrange this new political group in such a manner that it could truly perform. The Federal Republic of Germany is a federal state. It was conceived as the other of the centralized Prussian state. The US can also be a federal state. So the query is: how can Europe grow to be federal? Which means preserving the autonomy of its constituent components whereas creating an efficient federal system of illustration.
The problem we face right now is that Europe has grow to be the bastion of a specific concept of democracy and civilization. We stay in a loopy world the place folks contained in the European Union say, ‘It’s all simply paperwork, it’s simply Brussels. We would like out.’ And everybody outdoors says, ‘We would like in.’
Individuals all of the sudden ask: ‘Why not admit Canada?’ In any case, Canada is actually saying: ‘We need to stand along with you in defending this civilizational challenge of liberal democracy.’ However that stretches federalism past its limits. Europe has to consider easy methods to create a functioning federal construction with out turning into an empire. That’s an especially troublesome query.
In the intervening time, I can solely describe the paradox. Maybe Europe may perform fairly properly as a smaller Europe, even with the British again inside. From a purely purposeful perspective, one may say: throw all of the troublesome circumstances out, construct a smaller Europe, and the whole lot would work splendidly. A Benelux mannequin – a Beneuropa, if you want. However that’s, in fact, inconceivable. It utterly contradicts the European concept, it contradicts our traditions in addition to present actuality, and it will exclude a lot of japanese Europe.
CL: The purpose is that we wish a group of shared values. Nonetheless, these values usually are not completely European. They belong to humanity as an entire. In right now’s world, Europe has grow to be the core of a world group that seeks to defend liberal democracy, which additionally pushes past Europe’s personal borders.
These are the paradoxes we have now to grapple with. Europe can not stay small, nor can it merely grow to be massive as if it represented the entire world, and but Europe has grow to be the repository of common values. If we’re going to survive, we have now to discover a political kind that enables us to stay with this paradox. However most European politicians don’t appear to understand the problems.
DCB: Europe has grow to be an actor inside a a lot bigger world, a world formed by Trump, Xi Jinping and Putin. They pursue their pursuits internationally and compete globally. But Europeans nonetheless behave as if it had been sufficient merely to settle issues amongst ourselves, with out paying consideration to what’s taking place outdoors.
The anti-authoritarian era fairly rightly emphasised particular person freedom, the liberty to stay one’s personal life as one chooses. However now we face one other query: how will we perceive the collective pursuits of our group, and what does it truly imply to defend ourselves?
That’s the reason we argue in favour of obligatory nationwide service – not simply army service, however one obligatory yr of service for everybody, men and women alike. Ideally, this could exist throughout Europe. For one yr, each younger particular person would select whether or not to work in a hospital, in environmental restoration, or in army service, studying to contribute one thing to society. This might grow to be a genuinely European challenge. Should you construct such a basis, you additionally create the idea for a reputable capability for defence – as a result of defence in the end means defending our shared pursuits and our shared values. Consciousness of this stays very underdeveloped.
FL: You write an awesome deal about creativeness in politics and the necessity for open reflection and open debate. We affiliate that with traditions of dissent. Do you see any significantly inspiring initiatives or people right now that signify a brand new type of dissent, one thing that actually suits the current second?
DCB: One thing fascinating is occurring intellectually that’s opening folks’s minds. I name it the rehabilitation of Camus in opposition to Sartre. What does Camus signify? He mentioned: Sure, I assist Algerian independence, however afterwards the settlers, who’ve lived there for 100 years, should construct a state along with the Algerians – other than the apparent fascists among the many settlers, who must be excluded. The Left, nonetheless, mentioned: ‘No, the colonizers should go. That’s the one potential resolution.’
The concept that folks should construct one thing collectively is in the end the precondition for utopian pondering, for imagining how the world may very well be rebuilt. That’s an vital lesson. There may be, then, not less than one historic determine to return to.
CL: If we’re speaking about mental influences right now, we have now to return to historic figures and to the dilemmas they confronted. There is no such thing as a real European federalist motion anymore, so we must always re-examine earlier dilemmas and ask what we are able to study from them.
Our guide begins on the island of Ventotene, the place in 1941 a number of anti-fascists, liberals and socialists collectively developed the flexibility to think about a future, to think about a completely totally different Europe. We’re solely starting to grasp what Mitterrand and Kohl achieved. There are numerous ideologues right now who say, ‘much less Europe’ and even ‘go away Europe’. However that merely isn’t going to occur. The utopia has grow to be a fabric actuality.
First, then, we should bear in mind the principled federalists and those that grappled actually with political dilemmas. Second, we’d like pragmatic politicians who’re most probably to result in an actual turning level. They may very well be conservative, like Péter Magyar. Third, we’d like to bear in mind the factual power of fabric actuality that historical past has already produced. In different phrases, we have to perceive the circumstances beneath which an optimistic political imaginative and prescient may re-emerge.
