Martin Suchanek
The publication of a book by Thilo Sarrazin caused a storm of controversy in Germany over its racist conclusion. Martin Suchanek examines the arguments around the book
It takes the income of a federal banker to turn one’s hobby into a profession. This way was German “leisure author” Thilo Sarrazin able to promote among the media his complete work of racist propaganda, the book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany abolishes itself) – along with endless “clarifications” of his allegedly “misconstrued” statements. Every pseudoscientific excursion, like his “newest” theses on genetics, grants Sarrazin a ticket to the next talk show.
Thereby it may seem his flock of critics has never been this great. Even the German Federal Bank and the Social Democrats, of which he is a member, want now his prosecution. Why so late? Did Sarrazin state anything new, anything he has not said before? No! For years Sarrazin has called for and demanded the dramatic intensification of state racism, the increase of force and coercion against the “underclass”, and even the specific repression of “non-integrating” migrants or people on welfare and unemployment benefits, which are supposedly “unwilling to work.”
The replies Sarrazin gets from his critics are also everything but new. However, these “replies” often reveal, quite unintentionally, more about the critics themselves than about Sarrazin.
What are the “Arguments”?
1. Sarrazin would damage the reputation of Germany and social peace. This is in essence what German chancellor Angela Merkel had to say. So the problem is not the content, not Sarrazin’s demands. According to Merkel and others, the problem is that these demands are damaging Germany’s reputation, i.e., the economical and political ambitions of German imperialism. Also, the social peace, which on a global scale is brittle anyway due to the global economic crisis, shall be preserved. After all, the absence of “social peace” does not only mean class struggle from above, but also from below. Along this line of argument goes the accusation against Sarrazin that he is dividing society. Only those who try to conceal the very real division of society make such claims.
2. He would receive applause from the wrong corner. It is not really surprising that Nazis and right-wing demagogues feel encouraged and approved by Sarrazin. However, this accusation implies that the banker does not argue along the same lines as racist, anti-muslim or anti-semitic demagogues. Why then this assumption? Because many of Sarrazin’s critics actually share his mindset. This is exactly where another allegation comes in:
3. Sarrazin would make a “factual discussion” more difficult. Many of his critics, including former prime minister of Hesse, Roland Koch, and Social Democrat mayor of Berlin’s multicultural Neukölln district, Heinz Buschkowsky, state that Sarrazin did address “real problems.” Yet, so they claim, he would prevent a “factual debate” by “emotionalizing.” In other words, his critics argue that Sarazzin complicates the implementation of the measures he calls for.
Why is it so hard for bourgeois critics to refute Sarazzin?
That this is indeed the case was illustrated in the German talk show “Beckmann.” The participating bourgeois politicians had obvious problems refuting Sarrazin’s assertions argumentatively. Rather, they backed their circumventive position by claiming they had “different numbers.”
This weakness of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois criticism has its reasons. The increasing social turmoil, the racist exclusion of migrants and indeed the poor (for example of those permanently unemployed) thus, the ever-deepening social inequality, are the result of sharpening capitalist competition, of the intensifying exploitation of the working class. Against this background is a growing “underclass” that cannot even escape its misery in times of economic “recovery”.
Sarrazin writes with the energy of a half-educated, pseudoscientific member of the “elite”, which is aware of the increasing polarization of society and is willing to lose nothing of its position.
Under no circumstances should their individual place be attributed to the sheer luck of being born with the right passport and in the better economic situation. No, their privileged standing had better been the result of exceptional proficiency and cultural or even genetic superiority.
From this alleged genetic, i.e., “racial,” superiority they derive an entitlement for future privileges with regard to other cultures, especially “the muslims”, and to the “underclass”.
This is what makes Sarrazin’s theses so dangerous but also very popular among vast parts of the middle classes, the petty bourgeoisie, the labor aristocracy, as well as the declassed and politically indifferent mass of workers.
Sarrazin explains the social inequalities – just like any other racist conception – as given by nature. His critics dismiss (if not totally eliminate) these, arguing for social benefits for migrants and lower classes.
But it is exactly here where his critics run into a problem. While Sarrazin postulates and biologistically glorifies the unchanging nature of capitalist society as well as the inequality of the classes and the “races,” his critics proclaim the “equality” of each and every person. However, they want the capitalist and imperialist world order to be left untouched. Therefore, they must continually run into contradictions since capitalism necessarily leads to growing inequality between the classes, the nations, and the sexes.
Sarrazin’s critics do not want to hear that. And this is why they turn out to be helpless when confronted with the ideological hotchpotch of reactionary and inhumane “explanations” of the half-educated petty bourgeois.
While Sarrazin openly calls for war against migrants and the lower classes in order to make sure that whoever already is at the “bottom” remains at the “bottom,” his critics want to cure the growing societal disparities with placebos. In reality, this only leads to the justification of the racist and imperialistic politics of the ruling class.
Those who want to “abolish” Sarrazin and his ideas must fight the causes and roots of growing racism and growing fomentation against the poor. Those who do not want to talk about the overthrow of capitalism should also keep quiet when it comes to Sarrazin.