Interview by Jens König and Hannes Koch

taz: Mr. Werner, Germany has just been surprised by the realisation that there is an entirely new species on its social outskirts: the lower class, supposedly entirely lazy and antisocial. Many believe that if they continue receiving Hartz IV (the current variant of unemployment benefits in Germany –translator.) they’ll never get their asses in gear. True or false?

Götz Werner: False. But man will think ill of man – not of himself of course, just the others. Elevating oneself above others is by principle an inhuman act. From the lower class it’s a small step to subhumans.

Who is to blame for this new scandal of poverty? The people concerned? The welfare state? Hartz IV?

Let’s put it like this: we’ve got more of an upper class problem than a lower class problem in Germany. The upper class is unable to think of society as a whole. It doesn’t use its intellectual and financial capability to benefit the whole.

Conservatives and social democrats demand harsher punishment for those unwilling to work.

If I don’t give space and freedom to a man, if I’m trying to harass and hassle them, then I’m being unjust. This was one of the goals of the French Revolution: equality! That means: meeting eye to eye, at the same level. Allowing others to have the same strengths and weaknesses as myself.

People argue that many unemployed demand Hartz IV for themselves and their children as though it were a salary.

We’re living in a society of total external supply. Modern man does not manufacture for himself, he purchases. Everyone participating in this society is dependent on a steady income. Everyone needs a share. It might be very modest, but without it things don’t work. I’m calling this the socio-osmotic principle: unless you add some sugar to the water, you can’t extract the sugar from the beet.

Participation as a human right?

It’s a basic requirement for a dignified life. The first article of the constitution says: Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

SPD (the German social democratic party –translator.) fraction leader Peter Struck says that maybe the image of man the coalition had when introducing Hartz IV “may be too positive”.

Struck is either being cynical or ridiculing the unemployed.

The conservative fraction leader Volker Kauder claims the government needs to demand more from the people. For example, he says, one could expect him to wait tables in the evening if he were unemployed.

Yes, yes, people have to obey, have to do what the authorities, what the job office clerk demands of them. My God, the things politicians say! This sounds less like democracy and more like aristocracy. If I was a politician, my take would be: Sorry. I imagined Hartz IV differently. The reform was a mistake. Let’s take a U-turn. Hartz IV causes nothing but human misery.

You have once said “Hartz IV is a public prison regime. It takes rights and freedom. Hartz IV tortures people and destroys their creativity.”

This is still true. Is this what we imagined our free society to be? Authorities snooping on how the unemployed live? Hartz IV goes against the fundamental idea: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Hartz IV socially segregates people. It needs to be abolished.

Whatever creates jobs is social, or so politicians say. No matter how it is paid. No matter if it fits the person. No matter if there even is enough work.

Politicians still believe in the myth of full employment. They’re quite intoxicated by it. But full employment is a lie.

Does not everything depend on paid work nonetheless: welfare, identity, self respect, the feeling of being a part of something?

No! This obsessed view of work is making us sick.

Do we not become sick when we lose our work?

Contradiction!  We do not have a problem with unemployment.

Excuse me?

The problem is of a cultural nature. For the first time in over 5,000 years of human history, we live with a surplus. But we cannot handle this new reality. We are unable to have everyone profit from and share in it.

Tell that to an unemployed person who wants nothing more than a decent job.

The unemployed exist only because we use the concept of unemployment. Most of the unemployed have work, it’s not like they sit on the couch and watch TV all day. They are busy in their family, in other social work, in sports clubs. They are doing valuable work. Someone who cares for their children is much more valuable to society than someone twisting caps on bottles in the factory.

Aren’t you speaking over the heads of people who suffer from having lost their work and thus their inner foothold?

These people are suffering because they are not being respected and accepted. Because they are being stigmatised by society, because they are supposedly useless. Work is only what creates a value. If a woman is raising three children, people ask her: are you working or are you at home?

Minister of Work Franz Müntefering likes to quote the Bible and August Bebel: Those who do not work shall not eat.

Müntefering is a few hundred years behind the times. He still lives in a society of self sufficiency, where everyone was working against the want of things. Back then it was true: those who did not tend to their crops were themselves to blame when they had nothing to eat. Nowadays, we live in a society of external supply. I cannot work just for myself. Whenever I work, I work for someone else. I need an income to take part in society.

And here you show up and say: it is good when people don’t have to work?

I’m saying: we don’t need a right to work, at least not to instructed, social security contributing salary work. It’s no longer up to date. We need a right to income. To an unconditional basic income.

You want to give 1,500 euros to every person. Just like that. Month by month. From birth to death.

Yes. We need to give money to every person. A citizen income. The basic income needs to be enough to live modestly, but in dignity. It needs to be more than a minimum for existence – a minimum for culture.

The government defines the Hartz IV baseline as a socio-cultural existential minimum. This amounts to 345 euros.

In Karlsruhe, where I’m from, you can’t live on that. Or anywhere else in Germany. Maybe in Zimbabwe.

And your cultural minimum is 1,500 euros?

No. I brought the 1,500 euros number up in an interview as a future vision. Introducing the basic income would be a step-by-step process. We could start at 800 to 1,000 euros for everyone.

The same for everyone?

The amount could be based on an age curve. Children could start off at a lower amount.

But the rule is: no service in return, no obligation?

That’s it. A basic income without obligation. Just to acknowledge that everyone is appreciated as a part of society.

The favourite question of sceptics is: who is going to pay for it?

That’s a generic question used to kill a point before even discussing it.

Your basic income could cost a third of Germany’s total economic power. Almost a trillion euros a year.

The CDU-friendly (Germany’s major conservative party –translator.) Konrad Adenauer foundation has just had calculations made for such a model. The “solidary citizen income”, a basic income of 800 euros a month as Thuringia‘s (one of Germany’s 16 federal states –translator.) minister president Dieter Althaus (CDU) is proposing, would cost about 600 billion euros a year – less than the country is spending on all current social services.

The question still remains: where would the money come from?

From taxes.

Aha. Even more taxes.

No. I propose a very simple solution: abolish all taxes except for VAT. It’s the only tax that makes sense and is fair.

How high should it be?

Much higher than now. Maybe 50 percent.

You’ll need to explain that.

The purpose of the economy is to create an income for people by producing consumer goods. Unlike in the past we no longer live in an economy of lack. We’re producing a surplus of goods. This is why consumption should be the only basis of tax. Not those who serve should pay tax, but those who make use of others’ services. Hence, abolish all taxes – except VAT.

And you think this is fair? Why would you want to take income and profit taxes off the rich?

Because the rich also use their incomes for consumption – and thus would also pay the high VAT. Or they invest their income, which in turn causes more consumption. Eventually you will end up with consumption, and thus the ideal base for taxation.

Everyone pays taxes according to their capability – you’d entirely abolish that concept.

Why? VAT could be structured socially. A very high tax rate for luxury goods, a very low one for daily commodities. With a base income and a consumption tax, Germany would become an investor’s paradise, a work magnet that creates a lot of jobs.

The second most favourite question of sceptics is: why should man act against his nature and not just live in laziness when he has enough money to live?

I ask the sceptics: would you stop working? They respond: not me. I enjoy my work. They only assume of others that they would be lazy.

Maybe you’re just talking to the wrong people.

No. Most people just have two different ideas of man – one of themselves and one of the others. In the first, spiritual image man is a creature of reason and freedom. In the other, materialist image man is more like an animal, a creature of determined impulse and reaction. This idea is mirrored in the phrase: trust is good, control is better.

And you believe that everyone in your brave new basic income world will work by their own will?

With an unconditional basic income, we’re allowing everyone the space to do the work they consider necessary and sensible. We will work because we’re seeing a purpose in it, not because we’re being forced to. Is it not a truly free society in which everyone can abstain? In which everyone is free to say no to undignified circumstances? Free from existential worries, the people will unfold their talents.

That sounds a bit like Paradise.

You don’t believe me. But it wouldn’t be quite so easy to live on the basic income.

Why not?

There are no more excuses. All of the victim roles we’ve gotten so comfortable in no longer work. You cannot claim you’re doing the job just because you need the money, you’re only staying with your husband because you’re dependent on his income…

What would we gain from the basic income?

Dignity and safety – and power. We could tell an employer that we no longer want to work for them because they’re polluting the environment or because they’re treating their employees badly. You can’t imagine how such a basic income would unleash the abilities of our society.

But won’t there be people who won’t want to work?

They exist today, but they’re still getting money from the government – they just have to deal with repressions from social service authorities. The people who don’t want to work today won’t want to work in the future.

If you ask a Hauptschule (vocational oriented branch of German secondary school –translator.) student about what they want to be after school, many respond: dude, I wanna be on Hartz IV! What happens to these young people who now receive a basic income?

I can’t tell you. We will have to find out. But society needs to treat young people in a way that makes their start into life more attractive.

And attractive means giving them their cash and leaving them alone?

No. They need to find a purpose to their lives and set goals for themselves.

Young people saying they want to go on Hartz IV is also influenced by their parents’ indifference.

Do you see the problem with your question? They only say this because their parents are on Hartz IV. Would Hartz IV not exist, they would have a different goal in life. Were there a basic income, they would see that their parents can choose freely how to spend their lives. Young people choose their own ideals. It’s not like Hartz IV is the Matterhorn they want to climb.

Who does the work nobody wants to do in your world? Who goes door to door and cleans the doormats?

Maybe unpleasant jobs will have to be paid better. But fundamentally that’s how it works today already. As an example: if you want your newspaper to be delivered at 5am, there are three options. First, you make the work attractive enough so that others will do it. Second, you have machines do the work. Third, you do the work yourself. There’s a fundamental difference with the basic income in that work will be done voluntarily. The main factor is no longer the income, but the meaning of the work. This would massively improve economic efficiency.

You’re a dreamer.

If you don’t have dreams you can’t design your life. If you build a house before dreaming about it first it’s going to turn out pretty mediocre.

You’re one to talk. You own over 1,700 drugstores, earning a yearly 3.7 billion euros. You are one of the richest 500 Germans.

That’s incorrect. Of course, just like other entrepreneurs, I wanted just more and more in the past. Now my main goal is maximising the purpose.

You see the world with different eyes?

I’ve read the classics. Goethe, Schiller. I understood that my own success is not important. I want to help others to success. It’s not about business, it’s about people. I try to take people as they would like to be.

“Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come”, you say.

Says Victor Hugo. I’m just quoting him.

Has the time come for your idea?

At least it’s finally being discussed. Up until two years ago it was a matter for experts. When I hold seminars today, it is to full halls.

What has changed?

The old political slogans have nothing to do with the world that people live in anymore. In spite of temporary success stories, unemployment is on the rise and the unrestrained growth is damaging our resources. Even if Angela Merkel (the current head of German government –translator.) was to shout “full employment is possible” every morning, nobody would believe her.

Even within political parties, all the way from the far left to the right, the unconditional basic income is gathering a following. Why is that?

Because it’s both the most radical form of socialism and the most radical form of capitalism. I received a note from a listener at one of my talks saying “Your basic income model has united my socialist heart with my neoliberal mind.”

Translated into English by Florian Piesche

In this article, I will detail how video games are rated in Germany, going from simple age ratings step by step to an actual ban. I wrote something like this a few months ago, but it was far less structured and harder to follow. If you can’t be bothered with the details, just skip right ahead to Part 4, wherein I quickly summarize things and then point out the biggest misconceptions about how the whole thing works. Part 5, finally, will list a few fun examples of the system.

Part 1: Age Ratings

Games released at retail in Germany are required to go through a rating process by the USK. The USK is the German equivalent of the ESRB or the BBFC – it gives out age ratings for games based on their content; the organisation is being funded by German video game industry associations (previously by an NPO for social work focusing on youths). The USK ratings are Everyone, 6+, 12+, 16+ and 18+ and are legally binding – that is, it is illegal to sell a 16+ rated game to a twelve year old. Parents can of course still buy a 16+ game for their twelve year old kid if they feel like it; stores are just not allowed to sell games under rating directly.

Part 2: The Index

The Index is a list of games that certain restrictions apply to; this is extremely commonly mistaken for games being “banned” in Germany. The Index is maintained by a government-funded organisation called BPjM. If a game is refused classification by the USK, the BPjM may go about and examine the game for content that’s “endangering the development of minors”. If they find this kind of thing, the game is put on the Index. If not, the game is simply considered to be rated 18+.

Now, the thing about this is: games on the Index are not banned. They can be, and are, perfectly legally sold to adults anywhere. However, they are subject to certain restrictions – they may not be sold to minors, but they may also not be displayed or advertised publically. This of course means that publishers don’t want games to end up on the Index, because it means they can’t market them properly, which results in a sales hit.

Or so they think. Games that are on the Index frequently sell perfectly fine. Quake 3, for example – but I’ll get to the actual examples later on. After 20 years, games are automatically removed from the list; they may also be re-evaluated and taken off the list before then.

Part 3: Banning

This happens very rarely, if during its examination the BPjM finds a game’s content is to be in violation of German criminal law, such as by displaying Nazi propaganda outside of historical context – this means you, Wolfenstein – or denying the Holocaust or similarly dubious things. In these cases, the BPjM will forward the game’s title and their evaluation of it to an attorney of state, who examines the game to decide whether or not its content does indeed violate criminal law. If the attorney of state agrees with the BPjM’s evaluation, he will then request a judge to formally declare the game “seized”. This act, finally, makes the sale and purchase of the game in Germany – even to adults – literally illegal.

If someone purchases a game before this happens, however, they’re perfectly fine to keep it; they just can’t resell it. An actual ban like this has only happened to a small handful of games so far – most of them for slapping a swastika on everything that holds still for more than two seconds. There are few exceptions to this, usually games that have an underlying philosophy that glorifies acts of extreme violence against humans – glorifying such things is a violation of §131 of German penal law. As an example, Manhunt was banned for this reason; however this was a fairly controversial decision simply because there’s no real hard definition of what constitutes “glorification”. Bans like this are generally a rare occurrence though, as evidenced by the gap of literally ten years between Manhunt and the last previous game to be banned, Mortal Kombat 2 in 1994.

Part 4: The Lowdown

Now, let’s have a quick summary. All games to be released at retail must be handed in to the USK for rating. If a game gets a rating, it can go on sale all it wants. If a game is refused classification, it may be put on the Index, which restricts its advertising but still keeps the sale and purchase of the game to adults perfectly legal. If the BPjM disagrees with the USK’s evaluation and does not add the game to the Index, it is treated like any other 18+ game.

Games which actually violate German laws, however, may be actually banned from sale and purchase in the country, involving a formal declaration of this ban by a judge after investigation of the title by the USK, the BPjM and an attorney of state. The reason this happens to extremely violent games occasionally is that §131 of German penal law prohibits the glorification of “cruel” violence or its display in a way that “injures human dignity”; however most commonly it happens to games which use Nazi propaganda outside of genuine historical context.

Conclusion A: there are no “German authorities” that force publishers to censor games. Removal of blood and gore is a decision publishers make on their own, usually to achieve a lower USK rating and thus higher sales.

Conclusion B: most violent games are not actually banned in Germany and can perfectly legally be sold to adults. Even many of the ones that are often referred to as “banned” by the non-German gaming press.

Part 5: Example Cases

What fun would something like this be without some real-life examples? Here’s a few.

Left 4 Dead was rated 18+ by the USK and can thus not be put on the Index. There was no reason for the box art to be censored; this is extremely likely to be a decision made by Electronic Arts (who publish the game in Germany) with no external pressure.

Quake 3 was put on the Index fairly quickly after being released, in spite of receiving an 18+ rating by the USK. Before a change of youth protection laws on July 1st, 2003, the BPjM (back then called BPjS) could still add games to the Index that had received USK ratings. Its sale to adults is and has always been perfectly legal.

Unreal Tournament, conversely, was not put on the Index when it was released, in spite of it being conceptually identical to Quake 3 and released at roughly the same time. The BPjS stated that the game’s cartoony way of depicting violence led them to conclude that the game does not endanger the social development of minors. Almost a year later, the game was re-evaluated and added to the index. They probably saw that Angry German Kid video.

Prey received an 18+ rating from the USK and was released entirely uncut. It was never added to the Index and is perfectly legal to sell, buy and advertise in Germany.

Wolfenstein 3D was – and still is – banned. Its sale and purchase in Germany is illegal due to its merry use of Nazi propaganda that’s entirely designed to distort historic facts. We do have a sense of humor, just not about Nazis (well, some of us do).

Gears of War was denied a rating by the USK and subsequently examined by the BPjM and added to the Index, but not banned. It was not released by Microsoft in Germany; however the other European versions are available as imports in gaming stores (on request by adults, of course). Microsoft could have released it in Germany (under the regular Index restrictions) if they had wanted to but decided to not bother and just skip the German release altogether. [Update 2008-10-31: corrected again - the game was not released; however the non-German EU versions are on the Index.]

Dead Space, contrary to rumors that popped up a few weeks before its release, was not refused classification by the USK. It received an 18+ rating and can be sold to adults and advertised at will.

Doom 3 received an 18+ rating. It is not on the Index and can be sold, purchased and advertised freely.

Doom 1 and 2 were and still are on the Index. They may be sold in Germany, but only to adults and may not be publically advertised. The Gameboy Advance ports, however, both received a 16+ USK rating and can be advertised as well as sold to anyone over the age of 16. The Xbox Live Arcade version is not available in Germany.

Golden Axe was put on the Index, then later re-evaluated and taken off the list again. The game received a 16+ USK rating and can, since its removal from the list, be advertised and sold to anyone – although since 2003 only to people 16 or older. Sorry, kids!

Tetris – at least the iconic Game Boy version – is technically considered an 18+ game. Since the change of laws in 2003 that made application for an USK rating mandatory, all games that were not previously put forward for rating – or were just released before the USK came into being – are considered to be “adults only” until rated; the Game Boy version of Tetris has never received such a rating. I genuinely doubt anyone would be taken to court over selling it to a twelve year old though (and even if they were, the case would be swiftly dismissed due to the fact that the Game Boy version of tetris is near-identical in content and gameplay to the countless others which have received “Everyone” ratings).