In the “tageszeitung” from 19 August 2013 Andreas Fanizadeh delivers an acrid critique of Jakob Augsteins book „Sabotage. Warum wir uns zwischen Demokratie und Kapitalismus entscheiden müssen“.
In the beginning he mainly focuses on Jacob Augsteins privileged upbringing as heir to Rudolf Augstein, founder of the major German weekly “Der Spiegel”, and his consequent class position as a millionaire and part of the German media elite.
Hen then goes on to criticize Augstein’s lack of dialectical thinking and claims that he too easily applies the label of “post-democracy” to the German Federal Republic. He even raises the question whether the term “post-democracy” has become a label for non-dialectical thinking.
The review gives the impression that Augstein’s book would be a rather populist and polemic read. I trust the review so far. Both is fine for me: There is plenty of room — and perhaps even a certain need — for populism, for polemic and for acrid reviews, too.
However, I think it was political scientist Colin Crouch’s book “Post Democracy” that first popularised the term. Instead of just being polemic against Augsteins polemic (I trust the review that it is polemic), Fanizadeh missed a good chance for elevating the debate to a level more concerned with structures rather than phenomena. A good chance, indeed, of providing the readers of the “taz” with a glimpse of more dialectical thinking.
For a starter, check out the interview video below: