RALF DAHRENDORF
5 17
and socialist Utopias might thus be turned into a synergetic third ." The
"socialist Utopia" could be enriched by entrepreneurial initiative, and the
"capitalist Utopia" by the insight that the economy serves human beings, and
not vice versa. Thus, we should begin "the kind of intercultural dialogue
which might lead to a variegated and dynamic path to Central Europe."
"No" is the simple answer to this demand. We should not engage
in
this
"intercultural dialogue," and more, the very idea needs to be quashed.
It
is
wrong because it is another version of system thinking, and thinking in terms
of systems lies at the bottom of illiberalism in all its varieties.
It
is no accident
that our author uses notions like "transcending systems," or exploring ideas
"across the systems. " This is how he sees the world. The only difference
from, for instance, Fukuyama, is that he wants to introduce a third system,
"Central Europe" as it were, halfway between socialism and capitalism. (I
know that you like the notion of Central Europe because you do not want to
be labeled East European; indeed Poland has set its clocks to Central Euro–
pean Time throughout all these years and against Soviet pressure as well as
the logic of geography; but the concept is nonetheless laden with ideological
baggage - especially in its German incarnation, which brings back the
" ational Socialist" Friedrich Naumann and his
Mitteleuropa
as well as other
unsavory characters - so let us be careful in using it!) Our Swiss author for–
tunately calls the system "variegated" but is nevertheless taken by its
"Utopian" qualities. His is a kind of Rousseauean Utopia in which the "ritual
competition between majority-forming pseudoalternatives" is replaced by
"committed discussions of political programs" and of course a good dose of
"human warmth, empathy, and solidarity."
We must beware of Utopia too, and not only
if
it is of the Rousseauean
variety. Utopia is in the nature of the idea a total society.
It
may exist
"nowhere," but it is held up as a counterproject to the realities of the world in
which we are living. Utopia is a complete alternative, and therefore of
necessity a closed society. Why did 1 not write the planned anti-Orwell book,
Nineteen Eighty-nine?
Because 1 could not find a way out of Big Brother's
Nineteen Eighty-four
for Winston Smith. Benevolent Utopias are no better.
Karl Popper's demolition of Plato's
R epublic
has precisely this theme. Who–
ever sets out to implement Utopian plans will in the first instance have to
wipe clean the canvas on which the real world is painted. This is a brutal
process of destruction. Second, a new world will have to be constructed which
is bound to lead to errors and failures, and will in any case require awkward
transitional periods like the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The probability
must be high that in the end we will be stuck with the transition; dictators are
not
in
the habit of giving up their power. The Utopian, writes Popper, "may
seek his heavenlY 'city in the past or in the future; [he] may preach 'back to
nature' or 'forward to a world of love and beauty'; but [the] appeal is always
to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of mak-
