This Is What Democracy Looks Like?
I landed the decisive blow. “Isn’t this exactly what democracy looks like? Not the Pseudodemokratie your administration clings to, with its unequal voting rights that leave the people voiceless about their own lives?”
Brüning’s expression shifted—something sharper, almost impatient, replacing his earlier composure. “…I see. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Now—”
“One moment. I’m not finished.”
The microphone remained firmly in my hand.
“Communism does not stop at declaring the current system flawed. It offers concrete actions and methodologies. So let me answer the question of how we intend to put this theory into practice.”
Where do you think you’re slipping away to?
“To build a democratic society in which the people themselves become the masters of capital and society, making the decisions that shape their lives, what we need are councils—Räte. Germany will cease to be a system ruled by a handful of elites. Instead, it will become a federation of councils organized by the people in every region and every workplace.”
In essence, it resembled a forward-looking model of decentralized self-governance.
“Economic decisions will be made in decentralized councils where the people’s will can be reflected immediately, equally, and without bias. These councils could take many forms—urban, industrial, agricultural, or communal. Land, aristocratic estates, and the assets of monopoly capitalists would be redistributed to the people through these councils. This would lay the foundation for rebuilding society after the revolution, centered on workers and ordinary citizens. Production would be driven by need rather than profit. As a result, the risk of capital erosion would decrease compared to the current profit-driven model, generating far greater surplus capital that could be invested in social development and improving living standards. The state would not interfere heavily in the councils. The government—or the party—would limit itself to balancing disparities between councils, distributing goods according to the people’s needs, and handling only those functions that individual councils cannot manage alone: public security, education, healthcare, and infrastructure. In a society that first satisfies material needs, we could then achieve cultural and intellectual abundance as well.”
I had laid out even the concrete vision of the future society. There was nothing left to say. But before I set the microphone down, I added one final sentence.
“To you, Chancellor, politics may be nothing more than numbers. But to me and to the communists, politics is a matter of human lives. And a human life cannot be assigned a numerical value. Germany must stop being a cautious investment ground for capitalists and instead be reborn as a true community belonging to its people. That is all.”
I finished my rebuttal and finally lowered the microphone. I remained standing. If Brüning intended to counter again, I had to be ready. For now, I collected my thoughts and waited for his response. The other delegates in the chamber stayed silent, watching.
Brüning adjusted his glasses once more and spoke with measured calm. “Thank you for your remarks, Delegate Heinz.” He was remarkably skilled. “So you say communism pursues a different form of democracy than ours. Very well, I understand. However, you continue to remain silent on the one unavoidable gateway to this ‘council system’ you advocate: revolution. Revolution is the act of using violence to forcibly dismantle the legal order and constitutional system we are sworn to protect. Do you truly consider even that process ‘democratic’? Have you never considered that attempting to overthrow the system through the armed decision of a minority, rather than through compromise, cooperation, and the ‘will of the majority’ that forms the bedrock of democracy, is inherently the beginning of anti-democratic dictatorship?”
Brüning dismantled my arguments point by point.
“You speak as if the people and workers are angels ready to sacrifice their own interests for the community at any moment. Did the angry citizens of Paris who stormed the Bastille in 1789 bring peace to France? No. They ushered in Robespierre and Napoleon—dictators who seized the government, instituted the Terror, and dragged millions of soldiers across Europe into a cataclysmic war. The road to utopia always demands the blood of innocent people and provides the perfect opportunity for opportunists hungry for power. Humans are creatures of greed, Delegate Heinz. Distribution according to need? Fine. But who decides what that need is? Even within the councils, there will always emerge those who want more, those who seek to monopolize power. Economics—Adam Smith’s capitalism—takes that self-interest as its driving force and builds a society based on the sound judgment of the market. An economy that castrates the engine of self-interest will eventually stagnate. And to resolve that stagnation and greed, communists will inevitably resort to terror and coercion.”
…He’s not an easy opponent after all.
“Delegate Heinz is correct. The modern system is painful. It is unequal. But at least within the framework of law, we can anticipate the bread that will be distributed tomorrow. The brilliant utopia you propose is a gamble that has never succeeded once in thousands of years of human history. Rather than stake the lives of ninety million Germans on this unproven ideal, it may be safer for the people to accept this stable inequality and, however difficult it may be, correct the injustices one by one upon the soil of reality.”
The Chancellor set down his microphone.
It was a convincingly argued position. Not only for workers afraid of change, but for the petty bourgeoisie and middle class who feared upheaval itself and cared more about their immediate livelihoods than slogans of equality or revolution.
“Would you like to respond, Delegate Heinz?”
If I faltered here… everything would collapse.
“Yes. I will respond.”
I took a deep breath. In… out. In… out.
I organized Brüning’s argument in my mind. Humans are inherently selfish. Capitalism, though unequal, harnesses that selfishness as fuel for progress. Socialism, by castrating that selfishness, would only bring greater violence and instability. At first glance it seemed like a crude attempt to stoke the public’s fear of the word “revolution,” but refuting it required a fresh perspective. Simply insisting that humans are not selfish and that revolution does not inevitably bring bloodshed would be too naïve and optimistic. It would only drag me deeper into his frame.
Let’s do this. I can do this.
“What the Chancellor says… is correct. Humans are selfish creatures. And yes, revolution is violent.”
When I readily conceded his point, Brüning tilted his head slightly in surprise.
“Your argument, Chancellor, is that an uncertain gamble called revolution is worse than preserving the status quo, where we can at least anticipate what comes next. Is that right?”
“It is.”
“Then optimism is present not only in my words but in yours as well. Who promised that preserving the status quo would allow us to look confidently toward the future? Did anyone foresee that New York—last year at this very time the undisputed center of the global economy, the wealthiest city on earth—would collapse so brutally?”
If the “stable future” he relied upon had produced the Great Depression, the conversation changed.
“You described the capitalist system, which sublimates humanity’s inherent selfishness into a driving force for development, as the most stable order humanity has yet settled upon. If so, then the economic crisis now sweeping the entire world—except Russia and Spain—is also the result of capitalism. Of selfishness. And how can you be so certain that selfishness will always contribute to social progress? If unrestrained competition based on self-interest continues, one side will inevitably fail to endure and be destroyed. The victorious side will then monopolize that sector and manipulate society exactly as it pleases—truly selfishly. I doubt you would call that a desirable outcome of self-interest.”
In other words, excessive competition inevitably produces monopoly.
“Moreover, we humans have already learned how to restrain and conceal our selfishness. It is called law. What is law? It is the minimum set of norms that everyone must observe so that we may live together in stability, peace, and safety. What does the law say? Do not kill others. Do not steal from others. Pay taxes for the nation’s development. All of these are acts in which we voluntarily surrender a portion of our own interests for the prosperity and stability of society as a whole. They are acts that restrain selfishness. While selfishness is indeed part of human nature, so is the ability to restrain it. Socialism is the same. It asks individuals to restrain their selfishness little by little in order to eliminate discrimination and give everyone the chance to realize their dreams according to their abilities. Socialism restrains selfishness, but it does not castrate it. Castrating selfishness would mean demanding surrender in every situation. But the world is not made of capital alone. There are things that cannot be surrendered—human relationships, friendship, love, happiness and sorrow, the sense of achievement, and many others. Can we not still obtain those things through a healthy measure of self-interest? Let us yield to selfishness in those areas, and restrain it a little more strictly in the economic sphere.”