One of the central demands of the “Last Generation” is the establishment of a “social council”. It should be made up of randomly drawn people who should represent the population of Germany according to criteria such as age, gender, educational qualifications, migration background, etc. “So he is a reflection of society, a kind of ‘Germany in miniature’,” writes the “Last Generation” on its website. She expressly refers to the wording in the traffic light coalition agreement: “We will use and organize citizens’ councils on specific issues by the Bundestag.”
Demands of the “Last Generation” without a majority
If such a social council really reflected German society in a representative way, then the resolutions it would pass would roughly correspond to the opinions expressed in representative surveys of the population. Specifically, that would mean, for example:
- This social council would certainly be against a ban on the combustion engine, since, according to surveys, 67 percent of Germans reject the ban.
- Likewise, this board of directors would be against the end of nuclear power plants, since according to surveys only 28 percent are in favor of shutting down nuclear power plants.
- Measures such as Habeck’s heating law would be rejected because only 18 percent are in favor.
- One could only hope for a majority for a few demands from the “last generation”, especially for 100 km/h and a 9-euro ticket.
If the social council were also convened to deal with other issues, then one can predict with certainty that the resolutions would be in stark contrast to the ideas of the group. For example, a large majority of the population rejects further immigration into the social systems. Incidentally, the Council would definitely not formulate its decisions in the “gender-sensitive” language, which, according to surveys, is also rejected by an overwhelming majority.
Topics and objectives of the councils are specified
Of course, the “last generation” knows the results of the polls. It seems that in the “social council” not all topics can be freely discussed and corresponding resolutions can be made, but the goal of the discussion is set by the “last generation”, who writes:
“In a defined period of time, the Social Council will work out the necessary steps with the question: How will Germany end the use of fossil raw materials by 2030? This means that we are completely converting our energy supply to 100% renewable energies. … For all backgrounds, the participants are provided with facts and perspectives by various experts and can access further required specialist expertise in their consultations. The development of the concrete measures takes place in professionally moderated small groups, the process is accompanied by the media and the whole country is excited about what the council is discussing.“
Unworldly Ideas of the “Last Generation”
This means that topics and goals of the consultation are specified. “Experts”, presumably those who share the ideology of the group, should steer (“professionally moderate”) the discussion in such a way that it achieves the desired results. And the government or parliament should then only implement it: “The government should publicly promise to introduce the legislative projects associated with the measures developed in the social council to parliament. In addition, she should do the necessary persuasion work in Parliament for the measures and legislative proposals and implement the laws once they have been passed with unprecedented speed and determination.”
The “Last Generation” has repeatedly stated that they intend to continue blocking the streets until the government follows their ideas of “social councils”. That alone shows how unworldly their ideas are. Because do you seriously believe that the government says: “Okay, we promise that in future we will let our councils dictate our policies”?
councils in history
The idea of councils is not new. The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had already developed the idea of a council democracy in the 19th century. They were first implemented in the Paris Commune, praised by Karl Marx, in 1871.
The Russian Revolution took place under the slogan “All power to the Soviets”. According to Lenin, parliamentarism was merely a disguised form of bourgeois dictatorship. In order to create “true democracy”, parliamentarianism should be replaced by council democracy. The arguments made today in favor of social councils are in part similar to those of supporters of council democracy.
Imposing your ideas on the majority
In 1917 workers’, soldiers’ and peasants’ councils were formed in Russia. They developed into organs of “revolutionary democracy” and represented a second center of power alongside the Provisional Government. However, Lenin’s supporters were in the minority in the councils. They came to power in a coup d’etat and formally the Soviet Union was the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (the Russian word совет (soviet) means “council”).
In 1921 the ignited Kronstadt Sailors’ Rebellion, influenced and supported by anarchists, in the call for independent councils. But in fact the councils became “transmission belts” (Stalin) for the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which, however, was in reality a dictatorship of the Bolshevik party and later a dictatorship of Stalin.
The history of councils is therefore not a history of more participation and democracy, but on the contrary: councils were instruments of minorities who did not achieve a majority in parliament through elections and used the instrument of the councils to impose their ideas on the majority.
