At the latest since the Left Party’s election victory in Berlin, people outside the capital are also talking about socialization. But what exactly is behind this idea?
What does socialisation mean?
Socialisation means that we transfer assets currently owned by private individuals into public ownership and make decisions about them democratically and in the interests of the common good. There are therefore three pillars:
- Ownership structure: from a few individuals to society as a whole
- Objective: from private benefit to benefit in the interests of the common good
- Decision-making processes: from decisions made by individuals to grassroots democratic decisions taken.
How do we want to implement this?
There are various ways to drive such an alternative way of organizing our economy – both through parliamentary channels and through self-organised action.
One such route is even enshrined in the German constitution, the Grundgesetz – at the time of its drafting, socialisation was a widely accepted position in society. The Grundgesetz does not, in fact, stipulate that we must live under a capitalist economic system – after the Second World War, not only the trade unions and the SPD, but even the CDU agreed that pure capitalism was not desirable. This is how Article 15 came into being. It reads as follows:
“Land, natural resources and the means of production may, for the purposes of socialisation, be transferred to public ownership or to other forms of public management by means of a law which regulates the nature and extent of compensation.”
Furthermore, we can also set up our own spaces for self-directed work and living together in solidarity. There are many examples of such projects, such as the Ackersyndikat.
Does socialisation mean the same as nationalisation?
No! Socialisation means that decisions are not made by politicians alone, but that those affected can have a say through grassroots democracy. In the case of hospitals, for example, this could include people living in the relevant neighbourhood; for energy companies, it could be electricity customers; and for digital platforms, it could be their users. Employees would also be granted greater rights to have a say. Companies would therefore not become state-owned enterprises, but would be held in public ownership.
One way of achieving this is through so-called public-law institutions (Anstalten des öffentlichen Rechts). Their purpose is to carry out public tasks on a long-term basis. Examples that already exist include municipal utilities, which manage energy and water supplies for local authorities, broadcasting organisations such as WDR, and transport associations such as the Rhine-Ruhr Transport Association (VRR).
Has socialisation ever been implemented in Germany?
Yes and no – no socialisation has yet taken place under Article 15. However, after the Second World War, the citizens of Hesse decided in a referendum, on the basis of an article in the state constitution, to socialise mining, iron and steel production, the energy sector and rail transport. These enterprises were, however, privatised again by 1965.
Re-municipalisation – that is, the transfer of private property back into municipal ownership – has frequently been achieved by the public in recent years – for example, through the ‘Unser Hamburg – unser Netz’ (Our Hamburg – our grid) initiative or the ‘Berliner Energietisch’ (Berlin Energy Roundtable).
Furthermore, in 2021, the ‘Deutsche Wohnen und Co. enteignen’ initiative (Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen and Co.) organised a referendum in which the majority of Berliners voted in favour of the socialisation of large housing corporations. As the relevant politicians have so far been dragging their feet on this, Deutsche Wohnen und Co. enteignen is currently preparing a second referendum – this time with a specific draft bill which, if approved, would have to be implemented immediately.
Why do we want to socialise?
We are convinced that our current system, in which economic decisions are made by a small number of people – primarily the rich and privileged – results in their interests being prioritised above all others. Big Tech platforms serve profit motives just as much as property owned by large corporations, a privately organised energy system, and private hospitals…The result is high rents and neglected housing, a sluggish energy transition, and social and health policies designed to cut costs and maximise productivity, rather than creating the conditions for a good and, as far as possible, self-determined life for everyone.