Sahra Wagenknecht about the farewell of ordoliberalism under red-green and philosophical arrival of Homer Simpson
In its new book of wealth without greed, Sahra Wagenknecht examines, among other things, as the Federal Republic went away from ordoliberalism and speculative financial capitalism, which is geared towards short-term profits. Reinhard Jellen interviewed her
Mrs. Wagnknecht, the thesis of her book is that capitalism and market economy are by no means a symbiotic relationship nowadays, but that capitalism erods the market economy. You want to give pulses to rescue the market economy with your book before developed capitalism. But now I want in the sense of the epistemology Homer Simpson, of which the saying Everything was perfect in the past, except for that she has guided to the present, is called to object that, at least according to Karl Marx, exactly the market tends to lead to concentration processes of capital that produce oligopoles, which are then in turn, to remove market laws …
Sahra Wagenknecht: Yes, sometimes independently of the undoubtedly remarkable philosophical considerations of the simpsons is a bit of it. The market makes the strong strong and weak weak, but still there is a difference between a simple exchange on market and capitalist property. What I want to clarify is that a new economic order also needs market in certain areas – not everywhere, education, health and basic care, we do not need a market – but in the commercial economy you can not get out without you. However, this is far from the fact that we need capitalism because we could organize companies in other ownership ratios much better and more innovative than today is the case today. Image: @ dig / trialon
"Feudalization trends that lead the principles of the market economy to AD absurdum"
You write in the book several times of feudalization tendencies within the company, which drove the principles of the market economy ad absurdum. Which are they? How and why have these tendencies enforced?
Sahra Wagenknecht: I think we had to say goodbye to always send capitalism to all possible nice adjectives that do not correspond to the reality?. This is done, for example, that it is asserted that it is a service company. In fact, capitalism is an economic order in which the large incomes are not based on their own work performance, but on the fact that one possesses, in particular operational enhanced, and thanks to which other for themselves can work. The highest million income does not come from his own work, but here the results of the work of others are exposed without their own performance. This has nothing to do with the often propagated concept of a service company. What I call as a feudalization is exactly that. Just today, where the inequality becomes gross again and the life perspective is more and more of the parents’ home shutting down and not from what one has done itself, this development is stronger in particular mab.
"Not the property is an original principle of capitalism, but the property with a restricted liability"
They write that the property in itself is an original principle of capitalism, but the property with limited liability, a legal construction, which mainly use corporations for himself. You can learn that?
Sahra Wagenknecht: Private property is a lot of age than capitalism. Since the Romische law we know private property and it has also given such in the Middle Ages. But the special of capitalist property is not that someone works and thus acquires personal property, but that companies are investment objects from which their shareholders make profit. The liability-defined property of companies is indeed a very strange construction: one is liable very limited for losses, but one has full access to all winnings that are made today and in the future. With a relatively low initial deposit, one benefits from the entire profit of the company and can also fully pass this on its heirs. In Germany, this is largely unpolished by the inheritance laws. This is a specific thing that has nothing to do with personal property in the classical sense as a right to freedom. On the contrary, it is an attack on the freedom rights of those who work in the company and who are permanently expropriated there.