History
May 7, 2005 4:37 PM Subscribe
Nobel winner GÜNTER GRASS about Germany on the anniversary of the end of WWII (NYT).
The end of WW II...for Europe. For my dad, a US Marine stationed in Okinawa (Battle of Okinawa began 4/1/45), it was far from over.
That said, thanks for the link. Grass' "The Tin Drum" is amazing.
posted by GaelFC at 4:51 PM on May 7, 2005
That said, thanks for the link. Grass' "The Tin Drum" is amazing.
posted by GaelFC at 4:51 PM on May 7, 2005
Thanks semmi. It's wrong to suggest, though, that this article is just about Germany. Grass is making a subtle but strong argument about the fascistic potentials at the root of market capitalism. Under the cover of discussing the German post-War legacy, he's pointing a sharp, accusing finger at the U.S.
I wish Germans would do this more often: speak truth to American power from the perspective of a nation that knows the dangers of totalitarianism. Too often, they come off as self-indulgent scolds when they talk about geopolitics. There's real gravity in this piece.
posted by felix betachat at 5:08 PM on May 7, 2005
I wish Germans would do this more often: speak truth to American power from the perspective of a nation that knows the dangers of totalitarianism. Too often, they come off as self-indulgent scolds when they talk about geopolitics. There's real gravity in this piece.
posted by felix betachat at 5:08 PM on May 7, 2005
Good call, felix. But that gravity will, of course, be lost on most Americans.
posted by kgasmart at 6:19 PM on May 7, 2005
posted by kgasmart at 6:19 PM on May 7, 2005
Mmm. I too am a Grass fan from way back. I am puzzled by this, however:
"Compared with other nations which have to live with shame acquired elsewhere - I'm thinking of Japan, Turkey, the former European colonial powers - we have not shaken off the burden of our past."
It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that the Germans have done far, far better than the Japanese or the Turks in this respect, and I wish this claim had been substantiated in some way.
In fact, I wonder if this was mistranslated, and originally read something like "Like other nations..."
Does anyone know where the German text is? Google is not helping me.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:34 PM on May 7, 2005
"Compared with other nations which have to live with shame acquired elsewhere - I'm thinking of Japan, Turkey, the former European colonial powers - we have not shaken off the burden of our past."
It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that the Germans have done far, far better than the Japanese or the Turks in this respect, and I wish this claim had been substantiated in some way.
In fact, I wonder if this was mistranslated, and originally read something like "Like other nations..."
Does anyone know where the German text is? Google is not helping me.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:34 PM on May 7, 2005
I think this makes sense: East Germany is, he is saying, still a wasteland of sorts in a way that parts of Japan, for example, are not any longer. And the disparity between the two Germanies is a constant reminder that the war is still with them. You can walk around Japan, by contrast, and never know that the whole nation had been bombed into oblivion in the second world war.
This was quite good--thanks for the post.
posted by josh at 6:43 PM on May 7, 2005
This was quite good--thanks for the post.
posted by josh at 6:43 PM on May 7, 2005
I had read that sentance as being about emotions. Few Britons, for example, react with much guilt over all the problems the British empire caused, whereas even Germans who had not been born during the Holocaust still react very emotionally. I thought he had meant to shake off the emotional/cultural burden.
It is a good thing to be forced to remember that the popular image of rich, complacent Germany (essentially West Germany, as depicted in my Modern European history classes) is only half the story; we don't often hear of the disparity between east and west.
posted by jb at 6:59 PM on May 7, 2005
It is a good thing to be forced to remember that the popular image of rich, complacent Germany (essentially West Germany, as depicted in my Modern European history classes) is only half the story; we don't often hear of the disparity between east and west.
posted by jb at 6:59 PM on May 7, 2005
What is being destroyed, then, is not the state, which survives, but democracy.
something we all should work to protect--democracy.
and what felix said--great piece--thanks semmi
posted by amberglow at 7:04 PM on May 7, 2005
something we all should work to protect--democracy.
and what felix said--great piece--thanks semmi
posted by amberglow at 7:04 PM on May 7, 2005
(I only meant complacent like the rest of the developed and rich West, not a judgement on Germany specifically.)
posted by jb at 7:05 PM on May 7, 2005
posted by jb at 7:05 PM on May 7, 2005
The desire for justice is ridiculed as utopian. The concept of "solidarity" is relegated to the dictionary's list of foreign words.
*clap*
Lately, perhaps too late, we have come to recognize that the threat to the state, or what should be regarded as Public Enemy No. 1, comes not from right-wing radicalism but rather, from the impotence of politics, which leaves citizens exposed and unprotected from the dictates of the economy. What is being destroyed, then, is not the state, which survives, but democracy.
*clap* *clap*
Always nice to hear from Gunther, and his words are not only relevant to modern day Germany (which, I admit, I was quite ignorant of the existing east vs. west mentality) but of the western world as a whole. Excellent link and a great read. Thanks.
posted by purephase at 7:14 PM on May 7, 2005
*clap*
Lately, perhaps too late, we have come to recognize that the threat to the state, or what should be regarded as Public Enemy No. 1, comes not from right-wing radicalism but rather, from the impotence of politics, which leaves citizens exposed and unprotected from the dictates of the economy. What is being destroyed, then, is not the state, which survives, but democracy.
*clap* *clap*
Always nice to hear from Gunther, and his words are not only relevant to modern day Germany (which, I admit, I was quite ignorant of the existing east vs. west mentality) but of the western world as a whole. Excellent link and a great read. Thanks.
posted by purephase at 7:14 PM on May 7, 2005
I remember all the Ostie stuff, but thought they had fixed it all--i guess not, sadly.
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on May 7, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on May 7, 2005
I think Grass misses the point. He says "With the consistently high number of jobless...and the equally constant refusal of industry to create jobs, despite demonstrably higher earinings, the hope of full employment has evaporated." He then points the finger at an unfettered market economy as the reason for this.
It's true, German unemployment is high because companies won't hire new workers. That's because Germany's labor laws make it so expensive that the companies don't think hiring someone new is worth it, or they don't hire people because they're afraid they won't be able to fire them later. There are two solutions to this problem: 1. Ease Germany's labor laws to make hiring new people more attractive to companies. 2. Force companies to hire workers. This second solution that smacks of the very totalitarianism that Grass despises. Yet Grass dismisses the first, labelling "the impotence of politics [i.e., less government control over business], which leaves citizens exposed and and unprotected from the dictates of the economy" a "threat to democracy."
Grass is claiming, implicitly, that full employment is a human right that democracies should guarantee. But the only way the state can acheive full employment without a flexible labor market is to resort to totalitarian tactics. Grass can't have it both ways. But that's what he's trying to do when he complains about unemployment while at the same time lamenting the 'impotence of politics'. I may have misinterpreted what he was thinking, so I'm interested to hear what people who agreed with Grass's stance think.
posted by nyterrant at 7:56 PM on May 7, 2005
It's true, German unemployment is high because companies won't hire new workers. That's because Germany's labor laws make it so expensive that the companies don't think hiring someone new is worth it, or they don't hire people because they're afraid they won't be able to fire them later. There are two solutions to this problem: 1. Ease Germany's labor laws to make hiring new people more attractive to companies. 2. Force companies to hire workers. This second solution that smacks of the very totalitarianism that Grass despises. Yet Grass dismisses the first, labelling "the impotence of politics [i.e., less government control over business], which leaves citizens exposed and and unprotected from the dictates of the economy" a "threat to democracy."
Grass is claiming, implicitly, that full employment is a human right that democracies should guarantee. But the only way the state can acheive full employment without a flexible labor market is to resort to totalitarian tactics. Grass can't have it both ways. But that's what he's trying to do when he complains about unemployment while at the same time lamenting the 'impotence of politics'. I may have misinterpreted what he was thinking, so I'm interested to hear what people who agreed with Grass's stance think.
posted by nyterrant at 7:56 PM on May 7, 2005
I've just read the link on the Berlin memorial, and it is very striking and moving, but I am confused - why would they make it just to the Jewish victims? Why not to all of the victims of the death camps? Why would anyone not want to honour all? In the explanatory material (which every good memorial should have somewhere), it can be made clear that the majority of the victims were targetted because they were Jewish, but also that many Roma, etc, were also killed (I had heard more Roma proportionate to the overall population, but I'm not sure where).
posted by jb at 8:08 PM on May 7, 2005
posted by jb at 8:08 PM on May 7, 2005
nyterrant, but isn't that all related to the East/West thing? It's that privatization and swallowing up of assets was all one-sided, and the East folks got shit. And that West doesn't hire or value any of the East workers or their experience--their unemployment rate is far higher. Maybe it's that things should have been put into place at the time of reunification to more fully integrate the people along with the real estate and material assets.
posted by amberglow at 8:18 PM on May 7, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:18 PM on May 7, 2005
Yeah, the east-west tension is something that I didn't think about. There must be some severely in-built prejudices against workers from the east. I can imagine a company saying, "Well, we've got to choose between this guy from [insert engineering school in old West Germany here] and this other guy from [insert engineering school from old communist East Germany here]." Guess who's going to get the job, right?
The government certainly has a duty in that case to try to correct things, through retraining and legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against equally qualified candidates based on where they're from. But retraining takes a lot of time, and enforcing anti-discrimination laws like that could be very difficult.
Adjusting to reunification is bound to be a multi-generational process, and even then, there will almost certainly be lingering imbalances, just as there are in parts of the US. But ultimately, if people are free to move and work where they please, it should work out. I can understand how the first generation to be thrust into such upheaval would get tired of it after a while, but I also think that , in the long run, it will be better for the Germans that they went for reunification in one big, fell swoop, rather than negotiating it piecemeal.
posted by nyterrant at 8:31 PM on May 7, 2005
The government certainly has a duty in that case to try to correct things, through retraining and legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against equally qualified candidates based on where they're from. But retraining takes a lot of time, and enforcing anti-discrimination laws like that could be very difficult.
Adjusting to reunification is bound to be a multi-generational process, and even then, there will almost certainly be lingering imbalances, just as there are in parts of the US. But ultimately, if people are free to move and work where they please, it should work out. I can understand how the first generation to be thrust into such upheaval would get tired of it after a while, but I also think that , in the long run, it will be better for the Germans that they went for reunification in one big, fell swoop, rather than negotiating it piecemeal.
posted by nyterrant at 8:31 PM on May 7, 2005
nyterrant: There are two solutions to this problem.
Only two? How about this one: Let's pretend that companies will hire new workers out of the goodness of their heart, even when it is against their own interests and will hurt their bottom line (e.g. because they won't be able to get rid of them when business turns bad and they'll have to cough up millions in severance packages like IBM is currently doing in Germany). And when the companies don't fess up to "their responsibility toward the people", we'll call them capitalistic swine or worse.
... wait, that won't change anything so it's not really a solution, but that's basically what Grass and his ilk are advocating isn't it?
posted by sour cream at 11:22 PM on May 7, 2005
Only two? How about this one: Let's pretend that companies will hire new workers out of the goodness of their heart, even when it is against their own interests and will hurt their bottom line (e.g. because they won't be able to get rid of them when business turns bad and they'll have to cough up millions in severance packages like IBM is currently doing in Germany). And when the companies don't fess up to "their responsibility toward the people", we'll call them capitalistic swine or worse.
... wait, that won't change anything so it's not really a solution, but that's basically what Grass and his ilk are advocating isn't it?
posted by sour cream at 11:22 PM on May 7, 2005
Why is it a companies obligation to hire workers? A companies obligation is to generate a return for its capital holders. A government is obligated to protect its citizens from being exploited by companies.
Firing and hiring workers is not exploitation. Nor is it remotely Fascist. Actually a state the commands and directs industry is a step towards Fascism.
posted by JPD at 2:06 AM on May 8, 2005
Firing and hiring workers is not exploitation. Nor is it remotely Fascist. Actually a state the commands and directs industry is a step towards Fascism.
posted by JPD at 2:06 AM on May 8, 2005
Original text in german (published this week in Die Zeit, MP3 of Grass reading the article).
posted by ltl at 2:58 AM on May 8, 2005
posted by ltl at 2:58 AM on May 8, 2005
Grass is making a subtle but strong argument about the fascistic potentials at the root of market capitalism.
Nonsensical left-wing boilerplate. When was the National Socialist German Workers Party ever an advocate of "market capitalism"? Don't give me any guff about that "socialist" part being meaningless either - it's crystal clear from reading the Nazi party platform and looking at the economic policies it followed that it really did take the "socialism" business seriously.
There must be some severely in-built prejudices against workers from the east. I can imagine a company saying, "Well, we've got to choose between this guy from [insert engineering school in old West Germany here] and this other guy from [insert engineering school from old communist East Germany here]." Guess who's going to get the job, right?
Not necessarily. It could just be that workers living in the east have inferior skills on average, and command correspondingly lower wages. Just because two people have degrees in engineering doesn't mean they're equally good at what they do: how likely is it that a guy with a BA from a non-selective state university knows his stuff as well as an MIT grad?
Actually a state the commands and directs industry is a step towards Fascism.
Exactly! Günter Grass should stick to novel writing, as judging by his silly article, his ignorance of economics is truly painful to behold. It's no wonder the German economy is in such dire straits, given the seriousness with which such left-wing rubbish is taken in the country when it comes from famous people; last I checked, the Nobel Prize in Literature conferred no recognition of one's special gift for socioeconomic analysis.
posted by Goedel at 3:03 AM on May 8, 2005
Nonsensical left-wing boilerplate. When was the National Socialist German Workers Party ever an advocate of "market capitalism"? Don't give me any guff about that "socialist" part being meaningless either - it's crystal clear from reading the Nazi party platform and looking at the economic policies it followed that it really did take the "socialism" business seriously.
There must be some severely in-built prejudices against workers from the east. I can imagine a company saying, "Well, we've got to choose between this guy from [insert engineering school in old West Germany here] and this other guy from [insert engineering school from old communist East Germany here]." Guess who's going to get the job, right?
Not necessarily. It could just be that workers living in the east have inferior skills on average, and command correspondingly lower wages. Just because two people have degrees in engineering doesn't mean they're equally good at what they do: how likely is it that a guy with a BA from a non-selective state university knows his stuff as well as an MIT grad?
Actually a state the commands and directs industry is a step towards Fascism.
Exactly! Günter Grass should stick to novel writing, as judging by his silly article, his ignorance of economics is truly painful to behold. It's no wonder the German economy is in such dire straits, given the seriousness with which such left-wing rubbish is taken in the country when it comes from famous people; last I checked, the Nobel Prize in Literature conferred no recognition of one's special gift for socioeconomic analysis.
posted by Goedel at 3:03 AM on May 8, 2005
i_am_joe's_spleen: The original text read "Im Vergleich mit anderen Völkern," or "In comparison with other peoples". Translation's pretty accurate, inasmuch as there's no single word in English that carries all the connotations of Volk.
posted by ruddhist at 3:54 AM on May 8, 2005
posted by ruddhist at 3:54 AM on May 8, 2005
Goedel: Jeez, if you get this worked up every time a literary author spouts off about public affairs, I'm surprised you haven't had a stroke yet. Perhaps you haven't noticed that few novelists and poets, whatever side of the political spectrum they support, are qualified to discuss economics with professional accuracy, or even good sense? That doesn't mean that what they have to say is without interest, but it obviously has to be judged by different standards. But by all means keep ranting about "left-wing rubbish" if it makes you feel better.
ltl: I went to all the trouble of googling up the original text and finding the mp3 link before noticing you'd already done it.
posted by languagehat at 6:37 AM on May 8, 2005
ltl: I went to all the trouble of googling up the original text and finding the mp3 link before noticing you'd already done it.
posted by languagehat at 6:37 AM on May 8, 2005
Jeez, if you get this worked up every time a literary author spouts off about public affairs, I'm surprised you haven't had a stroke yet.
Don't you worry about me: my blood pressure is 110/80. What's yours, wiseass?
But by all means keep ranting about "left-wing rubbish" if it makes you feel better.
The only one "ranting" here is you: people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about should know enough to keep their mouths shut, whether they're Bible-thumpers mouthing off about creationism or lefty writers spouting rubbish about capitalism as fascism. There's all kinds of bafflegab that's "interesting" in the manner that listening to a street-corner crackpot is "interesting", but that doesn't mean it's worth hearing, much less listening to respectfully.
posted by Goedel at 7:14 AM on May 8, 2005
Don't you worry about me: my blood pressure is 110/80. What's yours, wiseass?
But by all means keep ranting about "left-wing rubbish" if it makes you feel better.
The only one "ranting" here is you: people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about should know enough to keep their mouths shut, whether they're Bible-thumpers mouthing off about creationism or lefty writers spouting rubbish about capitalism as fascism. There's all kinds of bafflegab that's "interesting" in the manner that listening to a street-corner crackpot is "interesting", but that doesn't mean it's worth hearing, much less listening to respectfully.
posted by Goedel at 7:14 AM on May 8, 2005
Your reasoned discourse has abashed and convinced me.
posted by languagehat at 7:35 AM on May 8, 2005
posted by languagehat at 7:35 AM on May 8, 2005
Goedel, you've illustrated the point perfectly. Grass is not making an economic argument, he's making a humanist, moral argument. The fact that you consider yourself justified to assert that his point is not worth: "listening to respectfully" is, frankly, a bit fascistic. The democracy that Grass is talking about depends on a free, open and respectful exchange of ideas. The fascism that he's afraid of asserts that some ideas and considerations are secondary in the face of others.
The problem is not with muddle-headed lefties who want to tell the economists and businessmen how to do their job, it's with the economists and businessmen who want to define how moral problems get framed. The idea that otherwise good and decent people can make frankly inhuman decisions in the name of shareholder value should give us all pause.
posted by felix betachat at 9:50 AM on May 8, 2005
The problem is not with muddle-headed lefties who want to tell the economists and businessmen how to do their job, it's with the economists and businessmen who want to define how moral problems get framed. The idea that otherwise good and decent people can make frankly inhuman decisions in the name of shareholder value should give us all pause.
posted by felix betachat at 9:50 AM on May 8, 2005
Felix, I think the problem with Goedel is that he's being a complete ass, not that he's advocating taking a socioeconomic view toward society's problems.
You wrote that the problem is with "with the economists and businessmen who want to define how moral problems get framed. The idea that otherwise good and decent people can make frankly inhuman decisions in the name of shareholder value should give us all pause."
I disagree, but it's not because I think you're a muddle-headed lefty. It's because I think the problem of unemployment is fundamentally a practical one, not a moral one. I do not believe that having a job is a fundamental human right that government should guarantee. If you believe that employment is a practical problem, then economics points to practical solutions for dealing with it.
I don't know what the roots are to the big differences between the moral and the practical camps. I suspect those in the moral camp too easily ignore the fact that we live in a world of sparse resources, and that humans, by nature, are mostly self-interested. I also suspect that those in the practical camp would not be so cold and detached in their analysis if they suddenly found themselves cut loose from a job, or if they were low skilled workers with few options.
There is one thing I am sure of, though, and that is that easing Germany's labor laws would be a lot faster and more efficient way of increasing employment than the alternatives, which are either to force companies to hire new workers, or to somehow change the self-interested nature of human beings. That second alternative may be a worthy goal for artists to strive towards, but it's not going to be bringing new jobs to Singelfingen any time soon.
posted by nyterrant at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2005
You wrote that the problem is with "with the economists and businessmen who want to define how moral problems get framed. The idea that otherwise good and decent people can make frankly inhuman decisions in the name of shareholder value should give us all pause."
I disagree, but it's not because I think you're a muddle-headed lefty. It's because I think the problem of unemployment is fundamentally a practical one, not a moral one. I do not believe that having a job is a fundamental human right that government should guarantee. If you believe that employment is a practical problem, then economics points to practical solutions for dealing with it.
I don't know what the roots are to the big differences between the moral and the practical camps. I suspect those in the moral camp too easily ignore the fact that we live in a world of sparse resources, and that humans, by nature, are mostly self-interested. I also suspect that those in the practical camp would not be so cold and detached in their analysis if they suddenly found themselves cut loose from a job, or if they were low skilled workers with few options.
There is one thing I am sure of, though, and that is that easing Germany's labor laws would be a lot faster and more efficient way of increasing employment than the alternatives, which are either to force companies to hire new workers, or to somehow change the self-interested nature of human beings. That second alternative may be a worthy goal for artists to strive towards, but it's not going to be bringing new jobs to Singelfingen any time soon.
posted by nyterrant at 10:32 AM on May 8, 2005
oh, there's also the rush to move factories and things (and the jobs that went with them) to poorer Eastern European countries--Romania, Bulgaria, etc...
posted by amberglow at 10:38 AM on May 8, 2005
posted by amberglow at 10:38 AM on May 8, 2005
nyterrant: Thanks. Really. If the issue were simply how to employ the analytical tools of economic theory to solve "practical problems", I don't think anybody would be up in arms. The issue is that, under the guise of economic theory, there is a project in place to redefine the nature of human subjectivity. Core doctrines about human rights and the role of the individual in the public sphere are being abandoned.
I'm not spouting left-wing boilerplate, here. I go to the UofC; I drink with and sometimes date these people. Rational choice theorists inspired by Gary Becker are employing reductive methodological tools in the humanities and social sciences to redefine cultural and aesthetic questions. Stephen Leavitt demurs when asked about the ethical ramifications of his work, but then puts forth analyses that prove that higher rates of abortion in urban areas in the 1980's can be correlated with lower crime rates in the '90s. Richard Posner adjudicates based on considerations of market efficiency rather than the rights of the individual. Richard Epstein proposes to turn us all into actuaries, placing a monetary value on our health and dignity so that we may receive adequate recompense when we're obliged to give them up.
Sorry, but I think at some point economics in the US stopped being a discourse for the solving of collective social problems and started being a deterministic philosophy used to justify ever increasing social inequality. Capital is king and everything has a pricetag.
You seem a fair-minded guy, so I'll ask you: where should the line be drawn? Should the individual who knows how the markets work participate in actions he or she personally considers unjust? If so, how is this different from the experiences of many German citizens during WWII? If not, on what grounds do we consider the logic of the marketplace to be contingent?
posted by felix betachat at 11:06 AM on May 8, 2005
I'm not spouting left-wing boilerplate, here. I go to the UofC; I drink with and sometimes date these people. Rational choice theorists inspired by Gary Becker are employing reductive methodological tools in the humanities and social sciences to redefine cultural and aesthetic questions. Stephen Leavitt demurs when asked about the ethical ramifications of his work, but then puts forth analyses that prove that higher rates of abortion in urban areas in the 1980's can be correlated with lower crime rates in the '90s. Richard Posner adjudicates based on considerations of market efficiency rather than the rights of the individual. Richard Epstein proposes to turn us all into actuaries, placing a monetary value on our health and dignity so that we may receive adequate recompense when we're obliged to give them up.
Sorry, but I think at some point economics in the US stopped being a discourse for the solving of collective social problems and started being a deterministic philosophy used to justify ever increasing social inequality. Capital is king and everything has a pricetag.
You seem a fair-minded guy, so I'll ask you: where should the line be drawn? Should the individual who knows how the markets work participate in actions he or she personally considers unjust? If so, how is this different from the experiences of many German citizens during WWII? If not, on what grounds do we consider the logic of the marketplace to be contingent?
posted by felix betachat at 11:06 AM on May 8, 2005
« Older NYFD Bath House? | Cristobal Vila's Isfahan Movie Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by semmi at 4:41 PM on May 7, 2005