Roland Dürre
Sunday September 10th, 2017

Another “Coming Out“ – #BTW2017

A cynical party-parody. Unfortunately, I mean it seriously, which makes it a sad thing.

In two weeks, I will again have to vote.

Perhaps 50 years ago.

My civil “super-ego” forces me to go to the elections. After all, I do believe that democracy is doubtless one of the better political systems, even if ours has been seriously perverted and consequently suffered huge damage due to “election marketing”, the dominance of lobbyism when it comes to legislation and government and a party oligarchy.

Besides, the party I vote for will not only get my vote but also one Euro from the state (if certain requirements are met ).

Consequently, I have spent quite some time already in preparation for the next election Sunday. Here is the current state of my personal evaluation. I chose the exclusion principle:

For historical reasons, I cannot vote for the big “people’s parties“ CDU and CSU. They both are responsible for the German re-armament against the expressed wish of the German people. In quite a goal-oriented way, it was prepared by the protagonist Adenauer immediately after WW-II and then realized as soon as possible in a fashion that I would call “criminal”. 
In doing so, they failed to take advantage of a unique historical chance. A chance that perhaps no other country except Germany ever had – which was due to its miserable history in the 20th century. As a consequence of the establishment of the “Bundeswehr”, the GDR followed suit three years later with the creation of the “Volksarmee” – and that was the moment up from which two German states, both heavily armed, confronted each other on either side of a brutal border. 
Without re-armament, the revival of the German weapons industry would not have been possible, either. Another result was forced labour that they called “compulsory military service”. It cost me 18 months of my life. 
Moreover, both “C-parties” have – to this day – seen to it that the political and social characteristics of the FRG are such that it became an opportunistic and egoistic welfare system. Protection of your property has become the highest social value. Even the “C” in the name cannot camouflage that fact. 
Under CDU dominated governments, the state became a marionette of the industry, the destruction of the environment (air, water, soil, nature) was accepted and even promoted (!), as for instance can be seen in the war on the streets. It became the ruling task of the educational system that young people should be turned into consumers and trained to be the labouring masses for the industry. Social solidarity was misinterpreted and freedom was sacrificed. . 
Parties that, to this day, believe that all these measures were good will not get my vote.

Neither can I, these days, vote for the SPD and Green Party, because they not only supported all these things, but also must be made responsible for making foreign German Armed Forces activities possible. At the time, the red-green coalition broke a taboo:
The German Armed Forces were no longer exclusively for defence, but “in order to take world-wide responsibility”. Consequently, that was the time when the FRG started to not only export weapons but also war. 
Unfortunately, if you take a close look at history, the polemic rhyme: “Who was the traitor, social democrats?” is only too true for the SPD. Even my agreeing with the ideal of social democracy cannot make up for this. 
As I see it, the Green Party developed from an idealistic-moralistic party to become an indoctrinated event – besides, I observe that the change from being an opposition to becoming a reigning party took place in an exceptionally foul way: ideals were sacrificed for positions and power.

I do not want to give my vote to the FDP. I am not really familiar with their negative historic achievements because I never took great notice of the party. However, in my perception, the FDP is and always was a party that – with the exception of a few protagonists – always acted rather opportunistic. It also basically always functioned as a party of patronage. And they received even more huge donations from industry than the other aforementioned parties. Besides: if someone demands and propagates FREEDOM yet does not know the meaning of the word, then I do not want to support them.

So what other parties do we have?

Currently, the AfD is rather successful. Well, I need not give reasons in this article why I cannot and will note vote for them. Just like the NPD is out of the question for me. Luckily, it seems like the NPD is no longer relevant. Regardless of the fact that, for reasons I cannot follow, the aforementioned parties constantly seem to try and forbid the NPD, rather than the AfD.

Next, let us take a look at the “Freien Wähler“ and the Freie Bürger Union (FBU). In Wikipedia, several groups of voters  and one small party call themselves “Freie Bürger Union“. They are present in various German cities and constituencies. Bavaria is a regional centre of these groups. And: they consist of bourgeois conservative or rightist-liberally  oriented regional communal politicians, activists and sometimes former representatives of the CDU/CSU who are no longer party members. I cannot give them my vote. 
Among other things, the Freien Wähler want to strengthen municipal self-administration. Their given reason for becoming candidates both on county and state level is that the politics of county and state undermine the independence of the municipalities The party is in favour of separate financial responsibility for the municipalities. On the European level, the party demands that excluding a region must become a set rule in parliament. I cannot vote for them.

So now I need to discuss the “Piraten”. According to Wikipedia, this party considers itself the party of the Information Society and thus as part of the international movement for participation when it comes to the change, they give high priority to “digital revolution” and consequently the information society. I rather like that. In fact, I already voted for the Pirates once in the past. To me, they seemed like a party full of values that, luckily, did not have a programmatic approach. Instead, they basically want to provide their know-how on digitalization, which is a focal point of their agenda. I also knew some members of the Pirate party. They were small entrepreneurs or else freelancers. Some of them were quite nice. 
Then, however, the Pirates thought they had to write a program and thus give up the principle of free actions following the best possible knowledge. In my eyes, this was how they exchanged their agile souls for the hope of success. Ever since then (as a matter of course), their development was in one direction only: down. For me, they were no longer a party I could vote for. What a pity.

Now I already analysed 10 (in words: ten) parties and none of them can get my vote! Am I heading towards abstaining? Will I let my election-Euro go unused? Well, not all is lost, because there are a few parties left.

I find Die Linke in Wikipedia. It says that Die Linke (aka  Linkspartei )  was created through the merging of the SPD splitter WASG and the Linkspartei.PDS. The latter is a result of a re-naming of the SED successor PDS in 2005. This is how Die Linke suffers from a stigma that, to this day, has prevented it from becoming acceptable in society. Allegedly, there are still numerous SED and Stasi people on board, although this seems unlikely to me, if only for demographic reasons. If I were the Wahlomat kind of person, I would probably vote for “Die Linke”, because in their program, I find quite a few things that I absolutely agree with. 
On the other hand, I own a small but industriously earned amount of money – and there is a historic fear in me that the communists might wish to take my millions away from me. As they say: “Only the most stupid calves will vote for their own butchers.“
Apropos calves: there is a Song, but it is directed against the AfD – rather than against Die Linke. However, I do not wish to be a stupid calf.
On the other hand, perhaps I should vote for Die Linke, after all? With modern “democratic honesty”, you should probably vote for the party that you like best. Consequently, I cannot discount the possibility of giving them my vote. Albeit without enthusiasm. But then, enthusiasm left me a long time ago.

But I have not yet reached that stage. I keep looking. Riding my bike to Unterhaching, I see a poster advertising “Die Grauen”. I am thinking of my sparse pension. If I had nothing on top of it, I would be really poorly off. Regardless of the fact that I paid the highest possible pension insurance for decades.
However: Die Grauen have the slogan “For all Generations”. What a disappointment. They are not in favour of us retired people, after all.
However, I find it nice, because I have children and grandchildren. And I want them, too, to be well off. 
According to Wikipedia, “Die Grauen” see themselves in the tradition of the movement Graue Panther that was founded in the 1970ies by Trude Unruh. As opposed to this movement, the party does not see itself as a party for the elderly, but instead has an all-encompassing political approach that they also want to see reflected in the name tag amendment. They formulate their philosophy in the foreword of the party program: “In a global world that moves faster and faster, Die Grauen want to combine the energy of youth with the experience of the elderly and form a society worth living in”. Well, this seems to sound nice. For me, however, it contains too many buzzwords. So I will gladly forget Die Grauen.

I start getting desperate. I found a dozen parties – and only one of them is even remotely an option. But – as they say: never give up. If you fall down, you have to get up again. Clean your mouth and continue.

So I continue. And lo and behold, I see a poster with a very special message:
Don’t be a Horst!

That is something I understand immediately. I definitely would not wish to be one. When he was Minister of Health in Berlin, he committed enough crimes. And now he is king of Bavaria. 
Except: the poster advertises “Die Partei”. According to Wikipedia, DIE PARTEI  is a party for work, for a constitutional state, for animal protection, for elite promotion and for basis-democratic initiatives (Apronym: Die PARTEI). It is a German small party that was founded in 2004 by a few editors of the satire magazine Titanic and distinctly has parody character.“ 
We also read: Die PARTEI meets the legal requirements formulated in the Parteiengesetz. However, some doubt that their program is actually meant seriously. Among other things, they imitate characteristics and electoral campaign methods used by other parties and occasionally some of the members are seen on other party’s events.

Well, basically I am the type of reader who reads POSTILLON, but you must never be too one-sided. “Die Partei“ is also called the satire party. When I hear satire, I think cabaret. And immediately, I think of people like Bruno Jonas, Claus Wagner, Dieter Hildebrandt, Gerhard Polt, Jörg Hube, Josef Hader, Georg Schramm, Maximilian „Max“ Uthoff, Sigi Zimmerschied, Urban Priol (Pelzig) and Werner Schneyder. Not to forget the much-loved Hanns Dieter Hüsch. These are all people I saw many times and some of them I was personally acquainted with. They all absolutely impressed me with their sensitivity, their sharp intellect and their precise logics. I admire how they were able to retain their sense of humour in the face of everything. These are people I managed to have honest discussions with quite quickly.

Most of the cabaret people I saw on TV or when I went to their shows made a huge impression on me. Maybe it makes sense, after all, to actually vote for a “satire party”. Especially if such a party offers itself to frustrated non-voters who need to be persuaded to vote at all? 
Unfortunately, this party, too, has a shadow looming over it. A short time ago, I followed a constructive facebook discussion about whether or not anybody can call himself responsible if he votes for a satire party in times like ours, where the social spiral rapidly points downwards and huge problems loom over the horizon. Because times are basically the exact opposite of hilarious. 
As I see it, this is a serious argument. But then, maybe we should solve the problems with serious humour? So now I found another party besides Die Linke that might qualify as a recipient of my cross and one Euro.

However, I want more. This is not the way to get on. So now I use another concept of thought and ask myself what was the last relevant social change in Bavaria I considered progress and which party initiated it.

The answer is easy – it was Non-Smokers’ Protection. In Bavaria, it has now even been enforced on the Octoberfest, which is something that seemed to be unthinkable for a long time. Consequently, this year, I can really look forward to the Octoberfest that takes place at the same time as the elections. I will spend the evening of election day with friends drinking in a smoke-free environment. In Bavaria, the protection of non-smokers was initiated after a plebiscite “Non-Smokers’s Protection” on July, 4th,2010 after a successful  petition for a referendum  “For true non-smokers’ protection!“. The petition had aimed at changing the Bavarian Health Protection Law (Gesundheitsschutzgesetz, GSG). As a consequence, they eventually installed a ban on smoking  in all pubs without exception. The C party had been against it on the grounds that, allegedly, the entire Bavarian restaurant sector would be ruined. The initiative had come from Sebastian Frankenberger and the ÖDP.
Well, my discussion of parties had actually not yet mentioned the ÖDP. Incidentally, their program is a fairly good match to my ideas. However, I sometimes fear that there might be a lot of protestant frugality and catholic saintliness in this party. However, as long as the goals are the right ones and I am not forced to become a catholic…

So now I found three parties that might actually be worthy of my vote: Die Linke, the Partei and the ÖDP. During the next few weeks, I will gather some more information and think about it – and then I will decide. After all, I know full well that decisions are always made under uncertainty.

And now, for the time being, there is an end to me “outings”.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
Today, when I rode my bike home, I saw a DKP poster at the Ottobrunn S-Bahn station. It said: “More Income, Less Armament”. Well, that sounds reasonable and rational. But can anybody vote for DKP? Somehow or other, that would be strange.

Hans Bonfigt
Thursday June 22nd, 2017

ex post

Marc Haber zeigt eine mir bislang unbekannte Seite des Dr. Helmut Kohl auf:

Roland Dürre
Sunday February 5th, 2017

Democracy & System

Not Democracy is the Problem, but the Underlying System.

A short time ago, I had a facebook discussion with my esteemed friend Detlev about this topic. Because I believe in democracy. But I think the underlying system it no longer any good. What we badly need is a structural reform.

After all, times have changed. What was considered “normal” at the time of the industrial era is no longer normal now. That is true for your workplace (#newwork), for enterprises and also for politics.

We no longer need winners. Emperors, “bog bosses” and centrally established officers (CEOs) are “out“. The same is true for a party “taking over the power” or a system that “gains power”! Because the power must remain with the sovereign: the people of a nation. And it cannot be taken by anybody else.

But first: our dialogue. Detlev is a master of the word, he had posted a great theory:

Detlev:
The liberal democracy is the most sensitive creature of the world. Nurture the baby!

Roland:
The problem does not lie with democracy but with the underlying system. I no longer want to vote for parties. Instead, I would like to decide between two options of how to deal with important topics that have been prepared in responsibility and following the idea of social consensus. Without any influence by lobbyists. I want to elect people who then actually work towards the reform. As responsible “coordinators”.

In former “democratic systems”, we had to elect a person who then had to decide what happens. This was true both for a chancellor (FRG) and the president (USA).

But now we no longer need “leaders”! The time of the “centrally established officer (CEO) is at its end in business, and we also should kiss it good-bye when it comes to the organization of our nation (politics).

Detlev:
“France, liberate yourself of persons.“
Those were the words of Anarchsis Cloots in his “call for the human species“
Then Jules Michelet instructed them to establish the government:
“Everything is done by the masses, the great men contribute little. Those who are allegedly gods, giants, titans just deceive us through their greatness, because they maliciously step onto the shoulders of the docile giant: the people“.

That was after the Napoleonic catastrophe. In its wake came a government characterized by a constitutional body that met regularly. And today? Again, France has a presidential system. Roland, why do you believe that it might work out this time? Just because we now have the internet? Or do you believe human nature has changed? I wish it were so.

Roland:
I coach a number of young persons and start-ups. And I notice all the time that they have actually made progress compared to former times. Yes, people change!

Detlev:
Very well, then let us try to prevent presidential systems from happening, especially those with a strictly authoritarian concept. Where shall we begin?

Roland:
First and foremost, I am going to write an article where I will integrate what you said. Your formulation and demand “prevent presidential systems from happening!“ alone is already a remarkable mental progress.

My conclusion:
To nourish something also means to reform it. For instance, I can easily imagine that it is no longer the purpose of democratic elections to bring a person or/and a party into power. Instead, its purpose is to distribute tasks.

For instance, you could elect persons who get the mandate to work towards possible solutions that might be acceptable for all if a social problem needs to be solved (with problem being defined as a state of affairs that cannot be left as it is). Maybe such a body could be the new parliament. It should work following the rules of the “Art of Hosting”, the “honest discourse “ (see: Habermas) and similar concepts. And then it should present the people the solutions they found.

We – the people of the nation – decide which of the solutions they presented us is the best. And if we like none of them, then the gentlemen in the parliament will just have to come up with something better.

It goes without saying that all and any influence through third powers of any kind (aka lobbyists) must be forbidden. Naturally, that also includes religious and similar.

I will no longer need a government in the traditional sense of the word with earls and knights. A well-trained administration is far more important. It must do exactly what the parliament has offered as solutions to problems and what the people have decided. And it must also execute all other important decisions that draw their legitimation from a democratic vote.

Dear Friends:
Prevent Presidential Systems from Happening!

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
I would wish to have plebiscites in a very direct democracy. Switzerland is a good and very successful example for a “better democracy”. To be sure, even here there is still potential for optimization.

The often heard argument against plebiscites that they sometimes also end in irrational results is easy to counter. If you have ten traditional decisions, you will probably mostly have five poor ones. If you have ten plebiscites, then the number is maybe one in ten.

Well, even the best system will not work totally without mistakes. Only when omniscient machines rule us can we come to that state of affairs.

Roland Dürre
Saturday November 12th, 2016

Interview for the DOAG-TV on “Digitalization”

DOAG22016-K-A-Banner-180x180_speakerBetween November, 15th and November, 18th, 2016, the DOAG Conference and Exhibition will be for the 29th time in Nuremburg. I was there and was permitted to give a presentation – and I was also interviewed by DOAG-TV. Here are the questions and my answers:


When and where, as you see it, did digitalization basically begin?

For me, digitalization started with the “written language”. A few thousand years – maybe 5,000 years – after language had evolved, they found a way to write it down. Then came the information carriers for written language , such as papyrus, paper and IT, along with machines such as the printing press, the lead set and eventually the internet.

Incidentally, written texts were first used for business purposes (merchandize). Business is the inventor of all things – not war. If anything, war is just an extreme sort of business – and, as I see it, a totally questionable and perverted one.

Auch damals waren die Zeiten schon "digital".

In those days, times were already “digital”.

Where are we today, and what does digitalization mean for the “analogous” creature “homo sapiens”?

Humans are and will always remain analogous creatures. Through the “cultural techniques” such as reading and writing, humans became a little digital. But never quite fully. After all, to this day humans cannot really manage to translate digital experiences into their analogous concepts of mind. Just think of the secret of the big number. Linear is hard enough, geometrical is quite difficult, logarithmic is impossible. Can you imagine how much money 200 quadrillion Euros is (it is the sum by which the EU countries indebt themselves anew each year)?

We lost the competence to calculate mentally or on paper as soon as the pocket calculator was invented. Who of us can still do it? Who can still extract a root or do a logarithmic value by hand?

Looking ahead: what will digitalization bring us?

Strangely enough, digitalization might actually make our lives analogue again. In former times, we translated digital data into analogous signals by modem (modulating and demodulating) before sending them on through a cable. And at the opposite end of the cable, the modem again re-translated them into digital data. Today, we translate analoous signals (noise and images) into digital data for transportation, split them into small data packages, send them through a package network, collect them and then re-arrange them in order to reconstruct the analogous signal from digital data (which is why we no longer have any static).

What will we have in the future?

  • In communications: facilitation gets more and more important. We will have more images and less written words. We will talk more and draw and write less. Audio will become more and more relevant – also as part of asynchronous communication. Podcasts and video recordings will continue to grow.
  • A “rudimentary illiteracy” will spread more and more. Language will benefit. Strong metaphors will become important, along with the awareness of “restricted code” and “elaborated code”.
  • Control of language and gestures will become dominant.
    Well, this is what the future might be like. Or maybe not. After all, we cannot predict the future.

 


So much about my interview! I will give a presentation at the DOAG Conference on Wednesday about “Digitalization – A Huge Error”. I already collected so much exciting material that I do not know what to tell people. That makes me nervous. But then, I will first be interviewed on Tuesday. As soon as my interview is online, I will, of course, set a link to it on the IF Blog. And I am quite curious what it will be in the end that I am going to talk about.

The picture was taken during my last presentation on the GOAG Conference of 2015.

"Zur Erinnerung an meinen Vortrag in 2015 (created by Christian Botta")

“Commemoration of my Presentation of 2015 (created by Christian Botta)“.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Thursday July 23rd, 2015

Ada Lovelace and Unschooling?

Here is my introduction to the presentation “Learning in Innovation” by Bruno Gantenbein  “Learning in Innovation” as I would like to see it tonight. What I am going to say is meant to connect the person ADA LOVELACE both with the term “unschooling” and with “project management”.

Ada Lovelace 1836, Gemälde von Margaret Sarah Carpenter (1793–1872)

Ada Lovelace 1836,
Painting by Margaret Sarah Carpenter (1793–1872)

ADA LOVELACE was a very controversial lady. As I see it, she must have had a very exciting – both successful and desperate – life. Even reading about her in Wikipedia gave me the following ideas.

If we want to become masters of our profession, we have to exercise the “best practice” of great masters and make use of humanity’s experiences condensed in “design patterns”. Until we reach a dead end – where we have to say good-bye to what we learned. Now you have to rebel and question “things” like “but that is how we always did it”.

Consequently, learning means familiarizing yourself with patterns and sticking by them.

Learning in innovation, however, calls for breaking with patterns. Breaking old patterns and developing new patterns will lead to creative destruction. Thus, living in a social community means you have to not only accept but even use the compromise between your individual needs and the collective rules for your own unfolding.

We love the formatted life, because it is secure and comfortable. We are prepared to subjugate ourselves under morals, because we want to be good.

On the other hand, we crave for freedom and novelty. Because we know that a moralising society will take away our freedom and confine us, at the same time making us look small.

This is the case both in private life and in our work life (if the distinction is still permitted at all). In the social communities of our private lives, we permanently manoeuvre between often paradox positions. And the same is true for our professional lives.

Because the enterprise where we work is also a social system, albeit with an economic purpose. Leadership is communication and communication is, again, a balancing act – between listening and speaking.

I do not know many biographies more laden with the conflict between autonomous self-determination and external control than those of the great mathematicians and Mrs. Ada Lovelace. Spontaneously, the only other person who comes to mind is Nietzsche, who was born a little less than 30 years after ADA LOVELACE.

I think we can only be “good” project leaders, managers and leading personalities if our important projects are a success. To me, it seems like the most important project for all persons are their own lives. If we want to meddle in other people’s lives, the first thing we have to do is make our own life a success.

However, our own life can only be a success if we focus on the really important things and if we change habits detrimental to life. Consequently, I have to be prepared to unfold my own life autonomously and bring order into it. In my personal life, I chose my mobility. I try to avoid unhealthy mobility as far as possible. It is very simple, isn’t it? –

How am I supposed to live a self-determined life if, for example, I cannot even manage to do it with respect to my own mobility? Consequently, I have to change and practice. Instead of letting myself be externally controlled.

Well, this is what I associate with the disrupted life of ADA LOVELACE.

During the presentation by Bruno Gantenbein, I would recommend that you look for parallels with your own life.

RMD
(Translated by EG)