I would like to put forward my proposal, utopian as it might sound to some, for changing the world of employment and opening up the possibility for a good life, without continued growth in consumer potential being used as a sop for unsatisfactory work and pay conditions and unemployment. For the sake of clarity, I am setting out my proposals in the form of theses.

1. Because of limits to resources and, in particular, limits to the burden that can be placed on the environment, continued quantitative economic growth will not be possible in the future. Assuming in addition that, in principle at least, the aim is for a similar quality of life to be achieved worldwide, our consumption of fossil fuels and the environmental pollution at present day levels will be completely unacceptable. The prosperous countries of Western Europe, the USA, Japan and elsewhere can afford their high-consumption, environmentally unsound lifestyle only because the remaining two-thirds of the world’s population live with much lower consumption of resources and environmental pollution. The concept of sustainable development, designed to prevent the negative effects for the environment and the unfair distribution of potential, will force industrial countries to change their style of living.
2. The social limits of growth described by Fred Hirsch also show that even in the event of significant economic growth more and more people will be frustrated in their desire for the high-profile goods that characterize the prosperous sections of the population.
3. As long as relations between individuals, social classes and societies is determined by the principle of competition, the trend towards continuing growth will be difficult to stem without dictatorial measures. In consumerist terms the desire for high-profile goods is an inevitable expression of this competitive mechanism. The happiness that some people acquire through the advantages they have over others is damaging to society, particularly if this happiness is achieved in an area where income and consumption are manifestly comparable.
4. A happy and contented life and community is possible in the long term only if a comparable quality of life is possible for all persons and all societies. I don’t mean rigid egalitarianism but rather a similar degree of satisfaction of the various human requirements — while recognizing differing capabilities, inclinations and requirements.
5. This ideal situation can be achieved if the following conditions are met:

1. Job prospects are gradually adapted so that workers gain satisfaction through the actual activities they perform. The work of Kern and Schumann reflect the initial steps that have been taken in this direction.
2. As long as it is impossible to offer everyone such prospects, those whose work remains unsatisfactory and unfulfilling should be compensated for this frustration in the form of shorter working hours, more pay or the offer of more satisfying work.
3. With shorter and more flexible working hours — as suggested by A. Gorz, for example — the free time obtained could be used for more satisfying forms of activity and for artistic, sporting or scientific pursuits. Once the working week were reduced sufficiently, society would no longer be driven by the work ethic alone.
4. Through appropriate training and instruction the passive consumption of art, literature, etc., would be turned into creative and active participation. This would also mark a return to the ability to enjoy leisure in the classical sense of Antiquity.

If it were possible to remove all social conflicts by making living conditions more comparable, the sop offered by society in the form of hope for a better tomorrow would no longer be necessary. The various different capabilities could then be developed and recognized by society. The constant comparisons promoted and made possible by the reduction of human variety to differences in income and consumption would no longer exist. Different activities, capabilities and preferences could co-exist peacefully. As to the question of how to progress towards a society in which work and leisure, playing and seriousness can be reconciled, I must turn to André Gorz for a provisional answer.

Gorz calls for the setting up and development of a second labour market offering jobs that are inherently satisfying and meaningful. People working in such a market would organize themselves into teams but could not, at least initially, achieve the same level of income or price competitiveness as companies operating in the normal economy. For this reason the government should subsidize such jobs — which would still be cheaper than financing unemployment. It would not be necessary, however, to subsidize those working in this alternative economy to the extent that their income is the same as that of those working in the normal economy. The attractiveness of the work would offer sufficient incentive to attract job-seekers.

With the hoped-for relative growth in this alternative sector of the economy, businesses in the official sector would be encouraged to make their working conditions more attractive. Developments in production engineering would be required to focus more on doing away with unattractive work and on creating attractive job possibilities than on reducing labour-intensiveness so as to make products cheaper. It is at least conceivable that this would set free dynamic energy that would force developments in the desired direction.

Biography

Iring Fetscher is a political scientist, a philosopher and university professor. He was born in 1922 in Marbach, Germany.

Iring Fetscher studied at the University of Tuebingen, where he earned his doctorate in 1950 and his habilitation in 1959. He was assistant at that same university from 1950 to 1955 and researcher at the German Research Association from 1955 to 1959. He was lecturer in philosophy at the University of Tuebingen from 1959 to 1963 and was appointed professor of political philosophy at the University of Frankfurt in 1963. He was Theodor Heuss professor of political philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York in 1968/69.

Iring Fetscher’s long list of publications includes ‘From Marx to Soviet Ideology’, 1957, ‘Freedom in the Light of Marxism-Leninism’, 1959, ‘Radicalism of the Right’, 1967, ‘The Political Sciences’, 1968, ‘Models of Securing Peace’, 1972, and ‘Democracy between Social Democratism and Socialism’, 1973. Iring Fetscher was editor of, among others, ‘Socialism. From Class War to the Welfare State’ and general editor of the four-tomed ‘Studies in Marxism’, 1957-1968.

Iring Fetscher is Member of the Advisory Board of the Society of Founders of the International Peace University.